Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

So... who's the fearful, paranoid, and unreasonable person in this scenario? Ah, it must be the concealed carry permit holders, of course. /sarcasm

To be fair, some of what that person is saying does sound fearful, and they state it outright ("fear for my personal safety"). However, I think there's a significant difference between "I'm fearful of becoming a victim of violence, therefore I will alter my daily routine," versus "I'm fearful of become a victim of violence, therefore I will carry the most powerful, legal force multiplier, even though there are several other effective methods, and even though dozens of studies have shown that carrying said force multiplier correlates with a decrease in my own personal safety."

[Cthulhu 2020]

Although let's be honest, people have a rational reasons to fear for both arming themselves and other people arming themselves. Think of how you view the middle east, this violent country where you're likely to be shot and killed in the streets. That's probably a lot of American's impression of that area.

Now realize that America has a higher gun related homicide rate per capita than any middle eastern country by 2-3x. The only areas of the world that outstrip the USA for gun related homicides are in south and central America, as well as some island nations.

Some people's personal resolution for dealing with this is to arm themselves. Others see the mounting evidence that your own weapon is statistically more likely to cause you harm in some way than it is to protect you.

[PhaelixWW]

no, he didn´t make a good point, both happen out of fear

Seriously?

One person refuses to do anything and go anywhere out of the fear of being harmed by background-check passing citizens who have mandatory training.

The other person refuses to let the fear of criminals keep them from enjoying the public, so instead they take the responsibility of preparing themselves for the possibility, but then go about their lives.

Paralyzing fear of proven law-abiding people vs. a healthy concern for violent crime leading to precautionary preparedness.

Yeah, totally the same.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that felons cannot purchase firearms is what causes them to re-offend? That's absurd. At the end of the day, any action they take, any law that they break, is a choice. Let's stop making excuses for poor behavior, shall we?

I don't think he meant firearm prohibition. He meant feeling like a second-class citizen because of a slew of restrictions, plus the fact that people will forever treat you like you're completely untrustworthy.

- - - Updated - - -

Our parole system is terrible, as is our prison system, as is our rehabilitation system. All three no doubt lead to high rates of recidivism. If we can fix those issues, and recidivism rates start to go down drastically, then we can have an honest discussion as to whether or not violent offenders should regain the ability to own firearms.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said.

- - - Updated - - -

i think we can agree that we should talk about guns and not fire detectors or seat belts as if they are comparable

We're not comparing guns to fire detectors and seat belts. We're comparing the reason for owning a firearm to the reasons for using fire detectors and seat belts.

Does the potential for a firearm to cause unwanted injury as well as save lives enter that discussion? Of course, but that doesn't mean you can't compare the reasons for ownership all the same.

[Tinykong]

I don't think he meant firearm prohibition. He meant feeling like a second-class citizen because of a slew of restrictions, plus the fact that people will forever treat you like you're completely untrustworthy.

It's pretty clear that anti-gun people are fine with creating a sub-class of citizens to sate their fears. I also love the "crime is a choice" line, that's a real gem.

[Svifnymr]

One had a second, separate amendment just to make it very clear that there would be no impediments or cost to its exercise whatsoever. The other one didn't.

Well, no, because it says it right IN the second amendment. "Shall not be infringed".

That's what a militia is. A well regulated one generally has at least some form of organization like training, ranks. Or are you going to launch into semantics about how regulating something well doesn't mean regulating it well.

Militia is every (white male then, now?) citizen of the country. In order to ensure that these folks were capable of mustering, they needed the ability to own firearms. If you want to make the issue that the USA should be giving M16's to every person to fulfill their role in the militia and training them, that's a different matter really.

But, I'd hazard a guess that you're not actually in favor of a militia anyway, and are just trying to disprove that the right to bear arms in for the common person, rather than some selective group such as National Guard.

[PhaelixWW]

To be fair, some of what that person is saying does sound fearful, and they state it outright ("fear for my personal safety"). However, I think there's a significant difference between "I'm fearful of becoming a victim of violence, therefore I will alter my daily routine," versus "I'm fearful of become a victim of violence, therefore I will carry the most powerful, legal force multiplier, even though there are several other effective methods, and even though dozens of studies have shown that carrying said force multiplier correlates with a decrease in my own personal safety."

"I'm fearful of becoming a victim of violence, therefore I will alter my daily routine," should instead read "I'm fearful of becoming a victim of violence, therefore rather than altering my daily routine or simply dealing with my fear, I'm going to plead with the state to strip the right of any person to choose to defend themselves with a firearm, because even though they pass a background check and get mandatory training, they might go apeshit and kill me."

My point is... if this is the kind of logical argument being proferred by the Brady Campaign in order to try and reverse the 9th Circuit decision... then they have problems finding logical arguments to support their position.

I mean, this is a case on Constitutionality. Basically, they're making the argument that one person's overweening sense of fear of background-check-passing individuals should negate what the SCOTUS has established as the core of the 2nd Amendment right.

[Svifnymr]

The fact that felons cannot purchase firearms is what causes them to re-offend? That's absurd. At the end of the day, any action they take, any law that they break, is a choice. Let's stop making excuses for poor behavior, shall we?

Keeping in mind that I'm not opposed to felons losing the ability to have firearms or vote until they've had their rights restored, the point isn't limited to the ability to owning a firearm. That's just the focus of this thread. If you are convicted of say, a drug related felony with no violent component, you do your time and then you do your parole/probation. Even after that is done though, you're still a felon. There's still lots of effects of that.

That's ignoring the stupidity of a lot of the sex-offender cases. Registering as a sex offender should be more like probation than some never ending label.

Our parole system is terrible, as is our prison system, as is our rehabilitation system. All three no doubt lead to high rates of recidivism. If we can fix those issues, and recidivism rates start to go down drastically, then we can have an honest discussion as to whether or not violent offenders should regain the ability to own firearms.

It's the problem with the "no guns for felons" discussion. There are so many flaws with the system that have nothing to do with the right to own a gun, that it's pointless to try to discuss it. That carries through for a lot of the problems in the thread though, doesn't it? If poor people are disproportionately likely to not store a gun safely, or to straw purchase or to otherwise lead to gun crime, should we just not allow people on welfare the right to own a gun? If we can't trust them to own a firearm safely, should we trust their vote?

[Mayhem]

Seriously?

yes seriously, both happen out of fear, you painting either side reasonable is opinion, but it doesn´t change that both decisions happen out of fear

We're not comparing guns to fire detectors and seat belts. We're comparing the reason for owning a firearm to the reasons for using fire detectors and seat belts.

Does the potential for a firearm to cause unwanted injury as well as save lives enter that discussion? Of course, but that doesn't mean you can't compare the reasons for ownership all the same.

though i doubt people would use fire detectors or seat belts that have a high chance of causing unwanted injuries, but if that was about why we own stuff, yep, that was very useful information

It's pretty clear that anti-gun people are fine with creating a sub-class of citizens to sate their fears. I also love the "crime is a choice" line, that's a real gem.

crime is not a choice? aha and what do you mean with sub-class of citizens?

- - - Updated - - -

If we can't trust them to own a firearm safely, should we trust their vote?

what the hell?

[Rukentuts]

yes seriously, both happen out of fear, you painting either side reasonable is opinion, but it doesn´t change that both decisions happen out of fear

Except 30 or more people don't die for each one person saved with seatbelts. Their bullshit comparison is still complete and utterly terrible.

[Svifnymr]

one feature of them is comparable, but guns can not only be used for safety reasons, so while seat belts and fire detectors are by design useful for one thing only, guns aren´t, comparing them is in my eyes being dishonest

I agree that the comparisons are far from perfect, but just because a firearm is purchased for self-defense, does not mean it can only ever hurt someone. It's not a binary of "chance of defending myself with it" vs "chance of hurting myself or a loved one with it". Guns hold their monetary value reasonably well, many enjoy sport shooting and there are a multitude of other reasons. If guns were only purchased for self-defense, there would be a lot fewer models, but we all acknowledge that most owners of firearms own more than 1.

Contrast to say, life insurance. Paying forever for the eventual payoff for your family. The seat belts that are a great help if you're in a car accident, but for some are terribly uncomfortable daily. Does anyone LIKE seat belts? The cases of seat belts saving lives outweigh the cases of them trapping someone and leading to injury/death, I'm sure, but both numbers are out there and a lot more concrete than the numbers of defensive gun uses.

- - - Updated - - -

yes seriously, both happen out of fear, you painting either side reasonable is opinion, but it doesn´t change that both decisions happen out of fear

Years back, when Florida was passing the "stand your ground" law, some guy came into the gunshop where I worked to purchase a gun. He was talking about how he was opposed to the law because violence would go up ten times and there'd be blood in the streets. I told him we'd have to see, since the law could always be changed again if there was an issue, but it really didn't change THAT much of Florida's pre-exisiting self defense laws and that they said the same thing about the concealed weapons law.
"Oh, that concealed weapons thing is going to lead to blood in the streets too, you just wait"
"It's been over ten years and crime has gone down every year"
"any day now, you wait!"

So yeah, there's irrational fears all around, but at least the "blood in the streets!" guys are funnier.

what the hell?

I was giving an absurd example to show some of the logic, you quoted the end of it, so not sure if you have an issue with something, disagree with it, didn't understand the point or...?

[Cthulhu 2020]

I liked the NRA's line, "The other side uses fear to try and pass gun control!" Later in the same speech, "The only thing standing between your entire family being kidnapped and raped is a gun!"

And again, we have 2-3x the gun homicide rates per capita as the middle eastern nations we demonize for being violent and dangerous.

Blood in the streets and apocalyptic street wars? No. That's just silly. But we're not as safe as many nations.

[Rukentuts]

I liked the NRA's line, "The other side uses fear to try and pass gun control!" Later in the same speech, "The only thing standing between your entire family being kidnapped and raped is a gun!"

And again, we have 2-3x the gun homicide rates per capita as the middle eastern nations we demonize for being violent and dangerous.

The NRA should be advertising their amazing record in regards to "defense" as well.

[PhaelixWW]

Except 30 or more people don't die for each one person saved with seatbelts. Their bullshit comparison is still complete and utterly terrible.

Once again you fail to understand that "saved by a firearm" does not have to mean shooting and killing your would-be-attacker. The vast majority of defensive uses that save lives occur without the defender needing to even pull the trigger, let alone actually kill the attacker.

But you've never shied away from false logic, so I'm sure you'll repeat this gem again later.

[Rukentuts]

Once again you fail to understand that "saved by a firearm" does not have to mean shooting and killing your would-be-attacker. The vast majority of defensive uses that save lives occur without the defender needing to even pull the trigger, let alone actually kill the attacker.

But you've never shied away from false logic, so I'm sure you'll repeat this gem again later.

Yes, and we're all well aware how you don't get how being "saved" more often means "committed a crime with" due to your affinity for false logic and rationalizations because you're scared to go without a weaponized security blanket.

I'm sure you'll continue to repeat comedic gems of nitpicks about how studies and science are flawed to try and convince yourself that you're still right by spewing ignorance about methodologies we were taught in high school.

[Svifnymr]

I liked the NRA's line, "The other side uses fear to try and pass gun control!" Later in the same speech, "The only thing standing between your entire family being kidnapped and raped is a gun!"

Yeah, both sides do it. Actually, everyone does it. I was in the grocery store today and there were signs saying I may die from Shingles. Need to motivate folks!

And again, we have 2-3x the gun homicide rates per capita as the middle eastern nations we demonize for being violent and dangerous.

I can see you've found a stat you like, but there's a lot more to it than that, but not sure from where.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate
USA=4.8, Iraq=8, Iran is 3.9, egypt 3.4
But then, I've always said that a lot of our violent crime is from the drug trade of mexico/columbi/ Northern South America and such, as well as the legacy of our horrible civil rights problems and continuing failures to address things. You also seem to confuse who is safe where. Well dressed white guy doesn't walk into the hood, anymore than he books a light to Tel Aviv.

Blood in the streets and apocalyptic street wars? No. That's just silly. But we're not as safe as many nations.

Sure, my point was simply that heavy handed inflammatory rhetoric is just to be laughed at. Someone buying a shotgun to leave in the closet, or carrying a small pistol in his pocket that is barely noticeable, these things are not major life decisions that are based on thinking you're going to get in a running gun battle.

For another absurd example, learning CPR in case you need to save someone doesn't mean you are going to try to be a paramedic. It could lead to many complications if you do something wrong too, so should no one ever learn CPR?

[Cthulhu 2020]

The car comparison only works when it supports their side, it's apples to apples when they do it. When you start comparing car regulations to gun regulations, it's suddenly apples to oranges because oh look it doesn't support their stance.

- - - Updated - - -

For another absurd example, learning CPR in case you need to save someone doesn't mean you are going to try to be a paramedic. It could lead to many complications if you do something wrong too, so should no one ever learn CPR?

My CPR training can't accidentally go off and hurt me, be taken up by someone else and used against me or another person, can't be stolen from me, and CPR training existing doesn't cause people harm, either.

People do many rational things for general safety and well being, they do things that can't have alternate repercussions or side effects. Talking statistical likelihoods, CPR training is a great decision. Gun... not so much.

[Svifnymr]

The car comparison only works when it supports their side, it's apples to apples when they do it. When you start comparing car regulations to gun regulations, it's suddenly apples to oranges because oh look it doesn't support their stance.

Why do you keep bringing up the car comparison to say it doesn't apply? Did anyone even mention cars compared to guns or are you just making some jump from the seat belt discussion?

I swear, it's like the only time I see people using "WoW-killer" to describe a video game is the WoW fans claiming someone else said it. You just keep repeating this same stuff about cars.

You want to compare cars, let's go for it. Cars dont' require background checks, cars don't require registration, cars don't require licenses.

Private ownership of cars contributes to significant death and environmental damage. If people were restricted from owning them, they could depend on the government for transportation and delivery of goods. Public Usage would be more cost effective as well.

- - - Updated - - -

My CPR training can't accidentally go off and hurt me, be taken up by someone else and used against me or another person, can't be stolen from me, and CPR training existing doesn't cause people harm, either.

My gun can't go off and hurt me either, it can be misused to harm, certainly, just as someone could be injured via errant CPR. I'm sure more people are injured in firearm training than in CPR training, but I'm equally sure there are people injured during CPR training.

People do many rational things for general safety and well being, they do things that can't have alternate repercussions or side effects. Talking statistical likelihoods, CPR training is a great decision. Gun... not so much.

Statistically, you are unlikely to ever be injured by your gun. You're probably also unlikely to ever use CPR. This is ignoring the effectiveness of CPR itself.

[TZucchini]

It's pretty clear that anti-gun people are fine with creating a sub-class of citizens to sate their fears.

I've been specifically talking about violent offenders. I see no problem with affording one time felons, convicted of non-violent crimes, with no history of violence, the ability to own firearms after they've served their term. That's not creating a sub-class of citizens. It's using logic.

Also, my desire to better society is a fear? Weird.

I also love the "crime is a choice" line, that's a real gem.

Are you implying that committing crime isn't a choice?

[Cthulhu 2020]

My gun can't go off and hurt me either, it can be misused to harm, certainly, just as someone could be injured via errant CPR. I'm sure more people are injured in firearm training than in CPR training, but I'm equally sure there are people injured during CPR training.

"Accidental" gun discharges account for a not-insignificant portion of gun injuries.

While YOU may be incredibly careful to ensure this never happens, many people are not.

[PhaelixWW]

"Accidental" gun discharges account for a not-insignificant portion of gun injuries.

While YOU may be incredibly careful to ensure this never happens, many people are not.

Accidental discharges don't happen if a round is not chambered. You don't have to be "incredibly careful" unless you're already far alone the way towards misusing a firearm, especially considering that rule number 1 (which is not difficult) is to always assume that it's loaded and ready to fire, so never point it at anybody.

Basically, all those "accidental" discharges are misuse.