Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Zhangfei]

The amount of abuse you'd heap onto millions of law-abiding people in an attempt to maybe (but probably not) prevent 34 murders a year is not reciprocal. By that argument, you should only allow public transportation and emergency vehicles on streets, because that would save far more than 34 lives a year. And human lives are never meaningless.

Stop applying this logic to other situations. It's ignorant. Guns are weapons, vehicles are not.

The only legitimate comparisons to guns are things like swords, pikes, rockets etc.

And America has 11,000 gun deaths a year.

Stick to punishing the guilty, not the innocent.

How is it punishing the innocent to ban something? Are we punishing the innocent with slander laws?

God, this is such a ridiculous statement. Should we also blame the woman who gets raped for being too attractive? After all, her makeup and clothing were the "source" of the criminal urge. Unless, you know, you want to say that the "source" is actually the criminal who has the though and acts on it, just like the "source" of stolen guns isn't the presence of legal guns but the act of the criminal who steals it.

No, because rape can't be stolen and used to kill people as it's designed to be a weapon to slaughter indiscriminately. Rape is an illegal act.

If you can prove that someone negligently left a firearm exposed to theft or misuse, then fine. But to say that nobody should be able to own one because a few get stolen is just... stupid. You're trying to imply that gun ownership is, by its very nature, negligent.

All unsecured weapons should be considered negligence if the person is not present with them. Secured weapons - and I mean properly secured, not "four-times-the-homicide-rate" American-style secured - are fine.

WTF? Are you blind?

He specifically mentioned it in his article. Read it again.

Purely in the realm of wishful thinking.

All hypothetical situations are given people won't accept the American attitude towards guns are insanely dangerous and contribute to thousands and thousands of murders. It's "wishful thinking" that banning certain types of gun wouldn't lower the homicide rate.

With logic like that, your position can't fail.

Are you literally denying that at mass shootings, guns aren't always present? That is epic.

[Incredibale]

Seems like rare events are only valid when they line up with those on the right here.

---------- Post added 2013-03-13 at 02:21 AM ----------


You think the president is a traitor?

ABSOLUTELY. He is a saboteur. He combines the terrible economic and civil rights aspects of the democrats with the military adventurism of neoconservatives. He is pure scum.

LaPierre opposes background checks. That's extreme. The NRA makes it easier for people who committed crimes to get guns.

Not extreme. Democrats are trying to make piecemeal advances toward a ban. It goes from universal background checks (which by dems' admission won't work without registration) to registration to confiscation.

If you want to protect the public, arm them as much as possible.

[Tinykong]

I'm curious why gun advocates think we can't legislate against assault rifles because they're so rarely used in crimes and it wouldn't be reasonable.

But gotta be armed against all those people coming to kill you.

Because millions of them are used every year without incident, and the actions of the few don't dictate the rights of the many.

[Wells]

ABSOLUTELY. He is a saboteur. He combines the terrible economic and civil rights aspects of the democrats with the military adventurism of neoconservatives. He is pure scum.

"policies I don't agree with" aren't treason.

Not extreme.

Opposing background checks isn't extreme?

Because millions of them are used every year without incident, and the actions of the few don't dictate the rights of the many.

Legalize nukes then I guess.

If you want to protect the public, arm them as much as possible.

There is no where that this actually is true.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm curious why gun advocates think we can't legislate against assault rifles because they're so rarely used in crimes and it wouldn't be reasonable.

But gotta be armed against all those people coming to kill you.

Seems like rare events are only valid when they line up with those on the right here.

That's because you didn't listen when I said it earlier, again and again.

The difference isn't in the rarity, the difference is in the impact it has on the innocent. Legislate against assault weapons all you want, as long as you don't needlessly punish the innocent in order to get at the guilty. Make stiffer penalties for criminals caught in possession of an assault weapon. Pass some safe storage laws applicable specifically to assault weapons. That's all different from an outright ban on assault weapons. Capiche?

[Wells]

That's because you didn't listen when I said it earlier, again and again.

The difference isn't in the rarity, the difference is in the impact it has on the innocent. Legislate against assault weapons all you want, as long as you don't needlessly punish the innocent in order to get at the guilty. Make stiffer penalties for criminals caught in possession of an assault weapon. Pass some safe storage laws applicable specifically to assault weapons. That's all different from an outright ban on assault weapons. Capiche?

Seems like you're just ok with using a rare event as justification when it matches your goals.

[Incredibale]

"policies I don't agree with" aren't treason.

He is deliberately trying to tank the economy. That is treason.

Opposing background checks isn't extreme?

Nope.

There is no where that this actually is true.

In your bizarro world, maybe. In this country, people used to take their rifles everywhere with them, and no one raised an eyebrow.

[Wells]

Nope.

How are you defining extreme?

He is deliberately trying to tank the economy. That is treason.

This isn't even vaguely true.

In your bizarro world, maybe. In this country, people used to take their rifles everywhere with them, and no one raised an eyebrow.

Do you have an example of a place and time where everyone having guns made the crime rate go down?

[Kasierith]

He is deliberately trying to tank the economy. That is treason.

What proof do you have that he deliberately hopped in a time machine and went back to tank the economy? I know that Republicans like to claim that Democrats believe that Obama is some sort of magical savior, but I think that's a little beyond what his presidential witchcraft is capable of.

[PhaelixWW]

Stop applying this logic to other situations. It's ignorant. Guns are weapons, vehicles are not.

But... I thought you said that human lives were never meaningless. Are you now saying that lives lost to vehicle accidents are less meaningful than lives lost to firearms? I mean, if your argument for why certain firearms should be banned is that a very tiny percent of them may be used in crimes, and that banning them might save a tiny amount of people, and this is all justifiable because lives are never meaningless... then you should also be in favor of banning the public use of cars, because saving lives, no matter the cost, is justification enough.

My point is that yes, lives are meaningful. But you can't save everybody. And you certainly can't start punishing the innocent on the off chance that it can save a few lives. Especially since killers will most likely just use another weapon to do the job.

Oh, say, like knives. Since they're weapons and they're used more often than rifles to kill someone.

How is it punishing the innocent to ban something? Are we punishing the innocent with slander laws?

Uh... slander laws aren't a ban? Banning TV news reporting in order to reduce slander would be a more apt analogy. Slander laws themselves only punish those, you know, guilty of slander.

No, because rape can't be stolen and used to kill people as it's designed to be a weapon to slaughter indiscriminately. Rape is an illegal act.

I don't get your point. So is using a firearm to kill someone. And stealing. You're trying to impose a new crime: that of letting or enticing someone to make you a victim of their crime.

All unsecured weapons should be considered negligence if the person is not present with them. Secured weapons - and I mean properly secured, not "four-times-the-homicide-rate" American-style secured - are fine.

If there are minors in the house, absolutely. If there are only adults in the house, then it's a different matter. And hey, I'm not saying that I'm against making laws for safe storage. I just don't buy into the whole "make the owner culpable in the death of someone killed with a gun stolen from their house" BS. Because even if firearms are locked up, they can still be stolen.

It's "wishful thinking" that banning certain types of gun wouldn't lower the homicide rate.

Anything an assault weapon can do, a handgun can do. The only obvious benefit to the former over the latter is in terms of long-distance accuracy, something which is a non-issue in virtually all shooting deaths. And any long-distance shootings would be just as well served by a bolt-action rifle not covered by the proposed ban. So it's still wishful thinking that someone with the intent of mass murder will just give up rather than use a handgun that evidence has shown fairly conclusively is available to said gunman.

Are you literally denying that at mass shootings, guns aren't always present? That is epic.

Apparently, even an obviously sarcastic remark doesn't translate well across forum text.

Of course guns are present at all shootings. It's apparent, however, that you're trying to state causality by implying that it's the sole common element, which is just stupid. Should I retort that "the common element of mass shootings are criminals", or "the common element of mass shootings are trigger fingers", or "the common element of mass shootings are a multitude of victims"? No, those statements would be almost as ridiculous.

And you should always be wary of treating the subset as the whole.

All mass shootings have a gun present, but not all guns are used in mass shootings. Not even a statistically meaningful percentage. All criminals are people, but not all people are criminals. Etc.

Honestly, the real thing that basically all mass shootings have in common are mentally ill people. But not all mentally ill people are mass killers waiting to happen.

Seems like you're just ok with using a rare event as justification when it matches your goals.

Or you clearly just didn't read what I said again, since I said that the rarity isn't the issue. I'm all for laws that punish those guilty of acts that harm others, regardless of how rare. Because those laws will only affect the guilty. Passing laws that affect millions of people, making them pay for the acts of a tiny percentage of criminals is not really how we do things in the US.

And that even assumes that the ban would have a productive effect in the first place, which it wouldn't. So it's really easy for me to oppose it.

[Tinykong]

Legalize nukes then I guess.

Nice hyperbole, Wells.

I mean, because nuclear weapons are used in recreation, home defense and collecting.

[Eroginous]

Are you literally denying that at mass shootings, guns aren't always present? That is epic.

What's epic is that you don't understand how arguing with a tautology is a logical fallacy.

LaPierre opposes background checks. That's extreme. The NRA makes it easier for people who committed crimes to get guns.

He opposes universal background checks, which are checks intended to be done by private citizens through an licensed dealer. Can you honestly sit here and tell me that two criminals are going to go visit an dealer to approve their transaction? Here's 3 facts behind universal background checks that make them a silly idea under the notion of 'addressing criminally obtained guns.'

1. Licensed Dealers are already required by federal law to perform a back ground check on any purchasing party, even at gun shows. If the gun is a gift meant for another individual, a background check has to be run on that person too. This is already federal law everywhere. Making background checks universally required for all gun sales does not change this.

2. Straw sales are illegal, and straw purchasers are already submitting to a personal background check in order to legally purchase a gun for an undisclosed 3rd party. Making background checks universally required for all gun sales does not change this.

3. Criminals are already obtaining guns through straw sales, criminal sales, and thefts, all of which are already illegal. Making background checks universally required for all guns sales does not change this.

The ONLY thing that universal background checks will do is force responsible private sellers who are 'legal conscious' to subject themselves to background checks in order to prevent prosecution, people who are a lot less likely to ever provide guns to criminals in the first place. Can you explain to me how exactly more background checks is going to do anything to address illegal guns? Or is it just more liberal 'feel good' legislation that makes them seem like they really care about things? The reality is that the effect it will have is minimal at best, while costing time and money to implement.

Stop applying this logic to other situations. It's ignorant. Guns are weapons, vehicles are not.

The only legitimate comparisons to guns are things like swords, pikes, rockets etc.

And America has 11,000 gun deaths a year.

What's ignorant is your opinion of guns and their relation to society. Both guns and cars are tools. Both guns and cars can be used as recreational devices. Both guns and cars can be used as weapons to kill people. There is no absolute 'guns are X, cars are Y' statement that makes your argument reasonable or even logical.

On top of that, America doesn't have 299989000 gun deaths per year. Statistically speaking, you have a 99.9996% chance NOT to be involved in a gun related death each year. Propping up numbers like '11000 gun deaths per year' does absolutely nothing to illustrate a picture of how good or bad our gun violence is. It's intellectually dishonest and you're making yourself look extremely ignorant because of it.

There is no where that this actually is true.

We don't live in a magical 'sunshine and rainbows' land where no one is ever in danger and people don't have to worry about their own safety. Even here in a 1st world country, you have to worry about other people doing things that endanger your life. You have to take your own personal safety and the safety of your friends and family 100% seriously. We have a military, and we have a police force but neither one are obligated to protect you or your family.

Do you have an example of a place and time where everyone having guns made the crime rate go down?

Having guns isn't supposed to lower crime rates. They're supposed to serve as a tool for self defense in the event of a crime. You keep putting the cart before the horse, and your argument assumes that the crime rate is more important than personal protection.

[Tinykong]

Stop applying this logic to other situations. It's ignorant. Guns are weapons, vehicles are not.

No, it's not.

Vehicles result in deaths every year from misuse and crime. So do a lot of other things. If the intent is to save lives, why not install interlocks on all cars? Or make it illegal for the elderly to live in homes that have stairs.

[Zhangfei]

But... I thought you said that human lives were never meaningless. Are you now saying that lives lost to vehicle accidents are less meaningful than lives lost to firearms? I mean, if your argument for why certain firearms should be banned is that a very tiny percent of them may be used in crimes, and that banning them might save a tiny amount of people, and this is all justifiable because lives are never meaningless... then you should also be in favor of banning the public use of cars, because saving lives, no matter the cost, is justification enough.

I said this wasn't the place for that logic. Stop straw-manning. I never said that.

My point is that yes, lives are meaningful. But you can't save everybody. And you certainly can't start punishing the innocent on the off chance that it can save a few lives. Especially since killers will most likely just use another weapon to do the job.

A gun ban "punishes" nobody. If there was a cellphone ban put in place it'd irk the ever-living shit out of me but it wouldn't be a punishment. It's a ban.

Oh, say, like knives. Since they're weapons and they're used more often than rifles to kill someone.

I wouldn't be against a banning of military-style knives.

Uh... slander laws aren't a ban? Banning TV news reporting in order to reduce slander would be a more apt analogy. Slander laws themselves only punish those, you know, guilty of slander.

Slander laws are a ban on a type of free speech.

I don't get your point. So is using a firearm to kill someone. And stealing. You're trying to impose a new crime: that of letting or enticing someone to make you a victim of their crime.

Indirectly aiding and abetting in a crime is already a crime?

If there are minors in the house, absolutely. If there are only adults in the house, then it's a different matter. And hey, I'm not saying that I'm against making laws for safe storage. I just don't buy into the whole "make the owner culpable in the death of someone killed with a gun stolen from their house" BS. Because even if firearms are locked up, they can still be stolen.

I say he's innocent if:
A) He secured the gun and ammo separately.
B) He reported the crime the moment it was discovered. A broken into secure case should be obvious.

Otherwise I consider him or her indirectly complicit in the crime. Owning a gun should be a strict responsibility with negligence a serious crime. People wouldn't take them so easily then.

I wouldn't try the gun owner for murder, if that's what you're saying.

Anything an assault weapon can do, a handgun can do. The only obvious benefit to the former over the latter is in terms of long-distance accuracy, something which is a non-issue in virtually all shooting deaths. And any long-distance shootings would be just as well served by a bolt-action rifle not covered by the proposed ban. So it's still wishful thinking that someone with the intent of mass murder will just give up rather than use a handgun that evidence has shown fairly conclusively is available to said gunman.

An assault weapon can do a hell of a lot more than a handgun. I think we have crossed wires here; I do not not support the assault weapons ban in America. I prefer the Anglo-Australian style of ban.

Of course guns are present at all shootings. It's apparent, however, that you're trying to state causality by implying that it's the sole common element, which is just stupid. Should I retort that "the common element of mass shootings are criminals", or "the common element of mass shootings are trigger fingers", or "the common element of mass shootings are a multitude of victims"? No, those statements would be almost as ridiculous.

But nonetheless true. While we shouldn't break down the parts of guns in your analogy, and we can't help some other parts without, you know, genocide, why don't we make efforts to stop criminals committing crimes and remove or strictly limit their weapons of choice? It certainly does cut down on homicides.

All mass shootings have a gun present, but not all guns are used in mass shootings. Not even a statistically meaningful percentage. All criminals are people, but not all people are criminals. Etc.

I agree and understand. I just don't get what that has to do with the 11k who die from entirely preventable means.

Honestly, the real thing that basically all mass shootings have in common are mentally ill people. But not all mentally ill people are mass killers waiting to happen.

Who's going to take care of them, though?

No, it's not.

Are any of those weapons designed to kill? No. Should we stop surgeons from cutting people open because murderers cut people open? Should we stop the police from breaking the speed limit because criminals do?

Military grade knives, swords, maces, battleaxes, rocket launchers, hell, a tank are things to compare to guns. Because it's a weapon.

[Tinykong]

Are any of those weapons designed to kill? No. Should we stop surgeons from cutting people open because murderers cut people open? Should we stop the police from breaking the speed limit because criminals do?

Military grade knives, swords, maces, battleaxes, rocket launchers, hell, a tank are things to compare to guns. Because it's a weapon.

And most of the things you just listed kill more people than rifles. Do you want them banned as well?

And even better, you don't have a right to own a kitchen knife, or drive a car, and yet you don't care about people owning those things and tens of thousands of people dying every year.

You're worried about something we do have a right to own that kills less than drunk drivers.

[Zhangfei]

And most of the things you just listed kill more people than rifles. Do you want them banned as well?

It doesn't matter to this debate because it's a red herring. Lots of things kill people, including surgeons and cars and policemen and alcohol and cancer and falling television sets and old age and over-ingestion on cheese. They all have other purposes and other means of control. The question is why do we need dangerous weapons from an outmoded philosophy and what benefit do they have on society when they are used so frequently to remove the rights from thousands of people.

And you know what, Tiny? We should totally make drink-driving illegal, just like guns. Would that make you feel better?

[Tinykong]

I agree and understand. I just don't get what that has to do with the 11k who die from entirely preventable means.

Because you're asking to infringe the rights of 300+ million people based on the actions of less than 0.00001% of the total population, which resulted in the death of 0.00085% of the population.

What about the millions of people who have died in armed conflict defending the Constitution? Are the dead kids at Sandy Hook more important than their sacrifice?

I certainly don't think they are.

[Zhangfei]

Because you're asking to infringe the rights of 300+ million people based on the actions of less than 0.00001% of the total population, which resulted in the death of 0.00085% of the population.

What about the millions of people who have died in armed conflict defending the Constitution? Are the dead kids at Sandy Hook more important than their sacrifice?

I certainly don't think they are.

The 0.00085% who died have zero rights now - so your "rights" ended up indirectly infringing upon theirs.

And nobody actually dies "defending the Constitution." I wasn't aware the Germans were targeting that piece of paper stored away so viciously

[Tinykong]

It doesn't matter to this debate because it's a red herring. Lots of things kill people, including surgeons and cars and policemen and alcohol and cancer and falling television sets and old age and over-ingestion on cheese. They all have other purposes and other means of control. The question is why do we need dangerous weapons from an outmoded philosophy and what benefit do they have on society when they are used so frequently to remove the rights from thousands of people.

And you know what, Tiny? We should totally make drink-driving illegal, just like guns. Would that make you feel better?

It's already illegal to drive drunk, just like it's already illegal to murder someone with a gun. Fail comparison is fail.

You're asking to make it illegal to own the car because a small percentage of people use them irresponsibly. Until I see you blowing into an interlock device on your car every time you want to drive it, you've got no argument. Our rights end where your feelings begin.

[Zhangfei]

It's already illegal to drive drunk, just like it's already illegal to murder someone with a gun. Fail comparison is fail.

I was making a pithy comment and mocking your illogical argument. You just explained why it's an illogical argument :facepalm:

You're asking to make it illegal to own the car because a small percentage of people use them irresponsibly. Until I see you blowing into an interlock device on your car every time you want to drive it, you've got no argument. Our rights end where your feelings begin.

No I'm not. Cars are not weapons. My "rules" or "philosophy" or whatever you want to call it here only apply to weapons.