Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Maleficus]

Most of them of course just have body guards.

Armed with them ebil guns of course.

I'd really like them to come up with a non-FFL based background check system, accessible via phone or internet, that would allow a seller to put in the buyers info and receive a simple "Pass" or "Go see a dealer" result with a unique number tied to it. Recording said number for their own protection to show they took basic measures as a responsible person.

Very nice. I would be much more open to an "expanded" background check system for private sales IF it did not involve the standard issue 127 gubmint hoops to jump through. However, let's not pretend the gubmint ever innovates or attempts to streamline or create an efficient, logical process. (Heck, i might have just committed a crime by putting innovate, streamline, efficient, and logical in the came sentence as gubmint.) Maybe just add another "endorsement" to the driver's license. A "G" endorsement could indicate "Hey, this guy can buy / carry a gun."

[Deleted]

Maybe just add another "endorsement" to the driver's license. A "G" endorsement could indicate "Hey, this guy can buy / carry a gun."

That adds another problem tho: what about people without a driver's license ?

[steale]

That adds another problem tho: what about people without a driver's license ?

State issued IDs accomplish the same thing

[Extrazero8]

Unless you are shooting for entertainment, every shot is a bad shot. Even in self defense, it's a bad shot, because it's a result of a bad event.

Well... a bad event for one person. That doesn't mean the shot was bad.

A gun simply has no other purpose.

Except for entertainment, and self defense, and collecting, and hunting.

Unless for recreation, a gun is there to be shot at another person.

I don't see why that is necessarily a bad thing.

Not understanding that a gun is nothing more than a weapon, should be a barrier to owning guns.

Who doesn't think guns are weapons?

[Bakis]

You keep doing that, going the absurd route with the argument rather than addressing things.
What the criminals did was illegal already, so we need new laws on the law abiding to hope that some of them accidentally affect the criminals?
Laws that we don't enforce already?

Now you can go back to you "NRA is blocking ATF power" argument that I've already pointed out isn't true, but you never do answer why the ATF Director shouldn't be confirmed in the same process as the FBI Director...

I dont see how his argument is absurd. What you are promoting is the all too common pro-gun view that unless any form of regulation or legislation is not 100% there is no need for it which nullify the need for every single law there is.
You also conclude there are only die-hard criminals. That legislation and the repercussion of breaking said law wont matter while logic, common sense and most importantly research dictate that for some it wont but for others the knowledge of that will make them think twice and decide not to break the law knowing the repercussion of it if they get cought.

[Svifnymr]

I dont see how his argument is absurd.

It is equally absurd as saying "criminals don't follow laws so we don't need any". The idea that we should pass any law because it may have an effect is absurd. The idea that just because we pass a law, it will be followed, is equally absurd.

What you are promoting is the all too common pro-gun view that unless any form of regulation or legislation is not 100% there is no need for it which nullify the need for every single law there is.

Or maybe I meant what I said and have said throughout the thread, that laws should be measured by their actual impact on crime vs their actual impact on the law abiding citizen and that we should expand on laws that are already unenforced. (We don't punish those that break the current background check law, so we should pass a new background check law that is even more unenforceable. We don't punish current storage requirements around minors, so lets expand that to storage requirements for everyone. We don't punish current straw purchasers, so lets make multiple straw purchasing a double felony.)

You also conclude there are only die-hard criminals. That legislation and the repercussion of breaking said law wont matter while logic, common sense and most importantly research dictate that for some it wont but for others the knowledge of that will make them think twice and decide not to break the law knowing the repercussion of it if they get cought.

I didn't conclude there are only diehard criminals, so whatever.
I don't see a link to the important research you mention, but I'm also not sure which point that important research proves, so it's fine.

I can link you to the NIJ study that showed two things:
1) most LA guns used in crimes were purchased in LA, not out of the area. Cali has a "no private transfer" law.
2) Cali figured they could decrease the amount of straw purchasing by sending each new purchaser of a firearm a letter, saying "we have records showing you bought a gun and will be watching". The net effect was a sharp increase in the amount of guns reported stolen...

[steale]

To get back to the original question, could someone from the gun control camp please define what exactly an assault weapon is and what it is you support banning? Is it a weapon with automatic capability? Is it a gun that looks scary? What makes a weapon an assault weapon, as opposed to, say, a defense weapon, a cuddle weapon, or a long walks on the beach weapon?

[Kujako]

To get back to the original question, could someone from the gun control camp please define what exactly an assault weapon is and what it is you support banning? Is it a weapon with automatic capability? Is it a gun that looks scary? What makes a weapon an assault weapon, as opposed to, say, a defense weapon, a cuddle weapon, or a long walks on the beach weapon?

Dont bunch everyone in favor of increased gun "control" in with those who are in favor of banning all scary looking guns.

[steale]

Dont bunch everyone in favor of increased gun "control" in with those who are in favor of banning all scary looking guns.

There are ~1600 people who voted in this thread to support a ban on assault weapons. I would just like a few to let me know what exactly it is they support banning, and what constitutes an assault weapon. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

[Kujako]

There are ~1600 people who voted in this thread to support a ban on assault weapons. I would just like a few to let me know what exactly it is they support banning, and what constitutes an assault weapon. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

It's not, but the way you phrased it has problems.

Asking the question of those in support of banning 'assault weapons' is different then asking it of those who support gun control. The two are separate issues.

[steale]

It's not, but the way you phrased it has problems.

Asking the question of those in support of banning 'assault weapons' is different then asking it of those who support gun control. The two are separate issues.

Ok, that's fair. Banning assault weapons definitely falls under gun control, but gun control doesn't necessarily include assault weapons bans.
To the people who voted "Yes" to support an assault weapons ban, what makes a weapon an assault weapon?

[Poodles]

Saw an article inn the free news paper today, about students inn one state, being allowed to take guns with them onto campus area.

Imagine the classic meathead, or the socially awkward nerd (Like moi!?), who hole his life have been a calm person, one day snaps inn a random fight, or get pissed on some people for no apparant reason. I think we've all been inn that situation, even if we shouldent (Especially as older people, not kids anymore). Would you feel safer knowing that could happen? Or would you be fine with students allowed to carry weapons, just incase the quiet kid Johnny one day starts shooting abit inn class even trough that happens as rare as almost never?

What is the worst for you, what makes you feel the safest? I would find it chilling to know that if I got into a fight, or got annoyed by a person (Even if I shouldent, shit happens) that guy might pull a gun on me.

Have a cool day!

Please, go back and re-read what you just wrote. There was nothing stopping that "socially awkward nerd" from bringing a gun to school and shooting the place up in the first place (like has happened before). Gun free zones are targeted for a reason...

[Roose]

Aurora Police: Rangeview High School employee accidentally shoots student

[Kujako]

Aurora Police: Rangeview High School employee accidentally shoots student

Clearly the problem here is that the student wasn't also armed.

[Daelak]

Uh oh, liberal science is at it again! States with more gun control laws show less gun related crimes and injuries. Who would of thunk it...

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1661390

[Tinykong]

Uh oh, liberal science is at it again! States with more gun control laws show less gun related crimes and injuries. Who would of thunk it...

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1661390

One of these days people will stop including suicides when talking about gun crime and violence. Probably not anytime soon, though.

[Kujako]

Uh oh, liberal science is at it again! States with more gun control laws show less gun related crimes and injuries. Who would of thunk it...

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1661390

Correlation does not equal causation. It could simply be that areas with less gun violence dont see the need to increase gun control.

[Daelak]

One of these days people will stop including suicides when talking about gun crime and violence. Probably not anytime soon, though.

Is suicide not gun violence?

[Nadev]

Is suicide not gun violence?

I wouldn't include simply because the person is willingly killing themselves. They'll do it whatever it takes.

They could use a knife, rope or their pet jellyfish in the bathtub.

[Svifnymr]

Aurora Police: Rangeview High School employee accidentally shoots student

"Off Duty Security Officer accidentally shoots friend while giving him ride home" being alternate title.