Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[lockedout]

By fairly pathetic, I mean that enforcement of the standards are very weak.

I think you mean enforcement of existing laws are weak.

[Tinykong]

It's interesting how people think a national registry would prevent crime.

Is it magic?

[NineSpine]

I think you mean enforcement of existing laws are weak.

The standards by which the registrations must be taken and kept are not enforced very strongly. Again: What's the point of a registry if most states don't require you to be a licensed dealer to deal guns?

- - - Updated - - -

It's interesting how people think a national registry would prevent crime.

Is it magic?

Fewer illegal guns means that it's harder to get illegal guns. The harder it is to get illegal guns, the fewer people who need an illegal gun will be able to obtain one. This isn't complicated, or even really debatable unless you are intentionally obtuse.

[Tinykong]

Fewer illegal guns means that it's harder to get illegal guns. The harder it is to get illegal guns, the fewer people who need an illegal gun will be able to obtain one. This isn't complicated, or even really debatable unless you are intentionally obtuse.

Does a national registry prevent people from stealing legal firearms and selling them illegally?

Because that's what happens.

[NineSpine]

Does a national registry prevent people from stealing legal firearms and selling them illegally?

Because that's what happens.

Eliminating every single illegal gun ever is not the expected outcome. Drying up the supply so that there are fewer illegal guns is the expected outcome. Your argument is essentially like saying that any individual safety regulation on highways is useless because there will still be some number of car accidents. If the barometer you use is "This will not create a utopia", then your barometer is broken.

[Tinykong]

Eliminating every single illegal gun ever is not the expected outcome. Drying up the supply so that there are fewer illegal guns is the expected outcome. Your argument is essentially like saying that any individual safety regulation on highways is useless because there will still be some number of car accidents. If the barometer you use is "This will not create a utopia", then your barometer is broken.

More anti-gun rhetoric, nice!

I've never said a gun registry is a bad thing, I just won't subscribe to the idiocy that is thinking it will "prevent crime." If anything, it will enable prosecution of criminals.

The idea that it will "prevent crime" is just about as ridiculous as the rest of this nonsense you posted.

[Ghostpanther]

This may come as a surprise, but 200 years of US case law on the Bill of Rights is a little more complex and nuanced than thesaurus.com. "Infringed" as used in the Constitution has a specific legal definition that hinges on hundreds of pages of case law.

You can "feel" whatever you want about what the Founders intended, but as someone who has actually read the Congressional debates over the Bill of Rights in their entirety, and much of the press work surrounding them in the major contemporary newspapers, I can tell you that what you "feel" likely has little impact on the facts of the matter. This is not religion. This is not philosophy. This is something you can actual read in detail if you want to

.

I agree with all of your proposals, but I would add an absolute ban on all transactions outside of licensed firearms dealers. If you want to trade a firearm with someone, you should need to go to a dealer to facilitate the transaction and record it.

- - - Updated - - -

Because it would be an effective method to prevent crime and catch criminals.

- - - Updated - - -

There's little evidence that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to enable armed revolution. In fact, the existence of the Constitution is predicated on the federal government being unable to put down a rebellion and needing more power. The concern at the time was that a federal military would be destructive to the Republic, so by ensuring the states had their own military power you could have the nation protected against external threats without the downsides that made them fear a centralized military. Furthermore, many states outright opposed the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment sweetened the deal for those slaveholding states who wanted to ensure their ability to put down slave uprisings.

Good points. But I find it odd they would use two words to indicate the same thing..namely prohibiting and infringed. If I have the wording correct.

I have no issue with that and I think it would be best.

It would. But a lot of time would be needed for it to become very noticeable. But you need to start someplace.

The Supreme Court has ruled the right to keep and bear arms is a separate right from the militia. And can be used in conjunction with self defense rights.

[NineSpine]

More anti-gun rhetoric, nice!

I've never said a gun registry is a bad thing, I just won't subscribe to the idiocy that is thinking it will "prevent crime." If anything, it will enable prosecution of criminals.

The idea that it will "prevent crime" is just about as ridiculous as the rest of this nonsense you posted.

Prosecuting more criminals means preventing crime. That's the reason you prosecute criminals: So that they can't commit more crimes.

A serious registry means that guns are registered from factory, not from store. 60% of illegal guns come from corrupt dealers. If the guns are registered and tracked before shipment to stores, you've already neutered 60% of the illegal gun trade. If you think that that has no effect on crime, you aren't dealing in reality. That's without even considering the effect on straw purchases or unlicensed dealers.

- - - Updated - - -

Good points. But I find it odd they would use two words to indicate the same thing..namely prohibiting and infringed. If I have the wording correct.

I have no issue with that and I think it would be best.

It would. But a lot of time would be needed for it to become very noticeable. But you need to start someplace.

The Supreme Court has ruled the right to keep and bear arms is a separate right from the militia. And can be used in conjunction with self defense rights.

There's a difference between the right to self defense and the right to overthrow the government.

[Tinykong]

Prosecuting more criminals means preventing crime. That's the reason you prosecute criminals: So that they can't commit more crimes.

So, we're going to use this extemporaneous logic? In that case, gang violence is a crime prevention method, since killing other gang members prevents them from every committing another crime.

A serious registry means that guns are registered from factory, not from store. 60% of illegal guns come from corrupt dealers. If the guns are registered and tracked before shipment to stores, you've already neutered 60% of the illegal gun trade. If you think that that has no effect on crime, you aren't dealing in reality. That's without even considering the effect on straw purchases or unlicensed dealers.

According to what? Or did you just make all of this up.

[Ghostpanther]

More anti-gun rhetoric, nice!

I've never said a gun registry is a bad thing, I just won't subscribe to the idiocy that is thinking it will "prevent crime." If anything, it will enable prosecution of criminals.

The idea that it will "prevent crime" is just about as ridiculous as the rest of this nonsense you posted.

I absolutely agree it would not prevent crime. But it would help, as you said, to get the criminals prosecuted. Which is a good thing.. In time it could have a impact on the crimes being committed with firearms. But no matter what laws are passed, there will always be crooks.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

There's a difference between the right to self defense and the right to overthrow the government.

Yeah. A big difference. Lol! But it is a right I can use to exercise my right to bear and keep arms without me being a part of a militia was my point.

[Tinykong]

I absolutely agree it would not prevent crime. But it would help, as you said, to get the criminals prosecuted. Which is a good thing.. In time it could have a impact on the crimes being committed with firearms. But no matter what laws are passed, there will always be crooks.

This is why I don't have a problem with a registry. Being able to tell where a gun has been from crime scene to manufacturing would enable prosecution of criminals.

[NineSpine]

So, we're going to use this extemporaneous logic? In that case, gang violence is a crime prevention method, since killing other gang members prevents them from every committing another crime.

You think that putting criminals in prison isn't a valid way to prevent crime? Really? This is the logical pretzel you want to twist yourself into? You are really exposing the underlying silliness and intentional obtuseness of your stance.

According to what? Or did you just make all of this up.

It's taken from ATF numbers. I don't have the source handy, but you'll find not dissimilar numbers in this report: http://policeissues.com/Sources.pdf

Frankly, I don't care whether you disagree with the number. Let's say it's 5%. That's 5% less illegal guns, and therefore fewer criminals able to obtain guns. Your argument only works if there aren't corrupt dealers at all, and I won't be surprised if you try to argue that after the "Putting criminals in jail doesnt count as preventing crime" argument.

[Tinykong]

You think that putting criminals in prison isn't a valid way to prevent crime? Really? This is the logical pretzel you want to twist yourself into? You are really exposing the underlying silliness and intentional obtuseness of your stance.

Criminals don't commit crimes in prison?

Seems like all you have to offer here is snark, since that seems to be the bulk of what you're posting. Probably because you're wrong.

It's taken from ATF numbers. I don't have the source handy, but you'll find not dissimilar numbers in this report: http://policeissues.com/Sources.pdf

Frankly, I don't care whether you disagree with the number. Let's say it's 5%. That's 5% less illegal guns, and therefore fewer criminals able to obtain guns. Your argument only works if there aren't corrupt dealers at all, and I won't be surprised if you try to argue that after the "Putting criminals in jail doesnt count as preventing crime" argument.

So, in other words:

You made it up.

[NineSpine]

Criminals don't commit crimes in prison?

Seems like all you have to offer here is snark, since that seems to be the bulk of what you're posting. Probably because you're wrong.




So, in other words:

You made it up.

Pretty clear at this point you aren't interested in any actual discussion, as evidenced by your lack of points in favor of attacks, and your disregard for the fact that I gave you a study to look at. Have a good night.

[Tinykong]

Pretty clear at this point you aren't interested in any actual discussion, as evidenced by your lack of points in favor of attacks, and your disregard for the fact that I gave you a study to look at. Have a good night.

A study about firearms in Los Angeles with data from 20-30 years ago.

El Oh El.

[NineSpine]

Final note: I could have just sourced that number at the anti-gun organizations I got it from, but I decided that it would be more productive to go to a more comprehensive study and avoid any arguments over sourcing. Trust me, it's the last time I will make the mistake of being courteous and intellectually honest with you to advance a reasoned discussion. I now see that doing so is a waste of my time, because you will just shit on the board and declare victory. Have a good night.

[Tinykong]

Final note: I could have just sourced that number at the anti-gun organizations I got it from, but I decided that it would be more productive to go to a more comprehensive study and avoid any arguments over sourcing. Trust me, it's the last time I will make the mistake of being courteous and intellectually honest with you to advance a reasoned discussion. I now see that doing so is a waste of my time, because you will just shit on the board and declare victory. Have a good night.

Let's see some current statistics, not something from a single city from 30 years ago.

Have a good night.

Have a good night.

Twice on the same page!

[Rukentuts]

Pretty clear at this point you aren't interested in any actual discussion, as evidenced by your lack of points in favor of attacks, and your disregard for the fact that I gave you a study to look at. Have a good night.

They don't believe in studies. Because they just don't feel right.

[Eroginous]

Right. I never made the claim specifically. Others have simply assumed I was making the statement. I'm not really concerned what other people would like to assume about my arguments. When it comes down to it, they stand on their own, and they're right there for everyone to read.

What's the point of bringing up the risk factors of firearms if you're not trying to imply that anyone who owns a firearm is at an increased risk?

If those risks are circumstantial, then wouldn't you be better off not bringing those risks up at all? I mean, we've spent hundreds of pages on this and all you've managed to do is imply that guns make people less safe while specifically trying to avoid sweeping generalizations (or so you claim).

In this country, we make laws for the general populace. We don't make laws that specific individuals must follow, and others are allowed to break. So when several studies have shown that firearms are a risk factor for homicide/suicide for the general populace, our laws should reflect that.

You're right, we do have laws regarding firearm ownership, many existing out of general concern for the potential risks involved regarding said ownership. You have yet to offer anything that shows these laws are inadequate, let alone in need of improvement or revision. Claiming 'it's too difficult to create the laws I prefer so we should repeal the 2nd amendment' is not really an honest take on the level of gun control we currently have.

but the supply from the legal market would vanish, therefor it´s an overall decrease in supply, or do you think like phaelix that a bunch of law abiding citizens would just become criminals and make up for the deacrese in available guns?

I think the following would happen after a ban on firearms or the sale of:

- Some people would immediately turn over their firearms to disposal programs.
- Some people would turn over their firearms to buyback programs.
- Some people would try to get the most value out of their firearms and sell them to other 3rd parties.
- Some people would outright refuse to give up their firearms, no matter what.

It's not as simple as 'guns banned > no one has guns anymore.' That's why it's more likely that there will be an influx of guns into the black market in the event there's a ban.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's interesting how people think a national registry would prevent crime.

Is it magic?

Just as interesting as people who think voter ID will solve the nearly non existent problem of voter fraud.

Also, would you say that knowledge that you're less likely to get away with a crime, just might be a deterrent, or do you think that people never consider take chances that they'll get caught into consideration when doing something illegal?

There's also the issue of SOLVING crimes being easier.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't believe in studies. Because they just don't feel right.

I only get that tingling sensation in my belly when I read about grandmas defending themselves with guns. I block out statistics that show seven figure violent gun deaths in the past couple of decades because grandmas defending themselves just feels right.