Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Grizzly Willy]

For once, I'm not going to take the bait. You know precisely what I'm speaking of, and what I mean by it. Any fool could understand the intent behind what I've said. Good lord, I spent the better part of 4 or 5 paragraphs spelling it out for you word for word. No, you are choosing to distort my intentions because you find it amusing. Normally I would indulge you, but today I'm not feeling it.

You take me to be far more hostile than I actually am. I'm just saying that the way you word it doesn't help your cause. Whether you want to take that as an attack is entirely up to you. I'm not doing this for my own amusement. I have games that I just bought if I want to be entertained. I don't have these discussions to have fun, and I am damn well not trying to goad you into an argument for kicks.

[bergmann620]

Well you have to look at what you're gaining for those deaths. I mean cars kill a lot more people per capita I'm sure but they're required for our world to function and that has to be taken into account. The only measurable good we gain from civilian fire arms is self defense and entertainment and they should be regulated with that in mind.

I wasn't referring specifically to cars, but with that as an example, we could regulate that all future cars must be equipped with breathalyzer-enabled ignitions.

It must be asked why we aren't willing to impose a cost that is negligible next to the cost of a car in order to save potentially 10,000+ lives a year down the road. Such a measure wouldn't even restrict the rights of anyone.

[Catta]

I wasn't referring specifically to cars, but with that as an example, we could regulate that all future cars must be equipped with breathalyzer-enabled ignitions.

It must be asked why we aren't willing to impose a cost that is negligible next to the cost of a car in order to save potentially 10,000+ lives a year down the road. Such a measure wouldn't even restrict the rights of anyone.

Its a nice idea but i fear that upkeep of the machine, amount of time taken to start, together with false positives would be a huge nuisance.

[Svifnymr]

i linked the fbi crime stats for 2010/11

the south with the most guns and least restrictive laws has the most violent crimes

Miami will have much more gun violence than most rural towns. Same with a lot of the poorer urban centers across the nation.

Also, Vermont (and Alaska) are the states that have open or concealed carry without a permit. Vermont and New Hampshire (live free or die!) have some of the easiest state regulations on firearms in the nation. The divisions seem quite arbitrary, really and cluster in a lot of varied places togethor.

---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 08:06 PM ----------

By the way, can somebody answer this ?

I've never understood not locking your door. Do your neighbours come in and such ? Can't they knock beforehand ? What's the point of not locking your door ?

Bowling For Columbine is full of all sorts of made up stuff, but the most hilarious part of it was when talking to the Canadian lady who said her town was so safe she didn't need to lock her door, then detailed a time when one of her neighbors came into her room in the middle of the night and watched her sleep or something.

"Yeah, no thanks, I'll lock my door."

---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 08:11 PM ----------

Well you have to look at what you're gaining for those deaths. I mean cars kill a lot more people per capita I'm sure but they're required for our world to function and that has to be taken into account. The only measurable good we gain from civilian fire arms is self defense and entertainment and they should be regulated with that in mind.

The actual comparison would be more "do we need private ownership of Cars/Guns". We're not taking guns away from the cops or military, or security companies I assume.

So, yeah, we need a way to get furniture home, but does it have to be privately owned? Wouldn't public transportation have many advantages over thousands of privately owned cars?
If guns don't need more than 10 rounds, then cars don't need to go over 65mph.

That sort of thing.

(Mandatory seat belts, mandatory gun locks)
(Industry standard airbags, industry standard drop safeties)

[Wells]

I wasn't referring specifically to cars, but with that as an example, we could regulate that all future cars must be equipped with breathalyzer-enabled ignitions.

It must be asked why we aren't willing to impose a cost that is negligible next to the cost of a car in order to save potentially 10,000+ lives a year down the road. Such a measure wouldn't even restrict the rights of anyone.

yes, we could. I don't see why that matters.

[LilSaihah]

yes, we could. I don't see why that matters.

Because then they'll key the breathalyzer to your DNA.
And then they'll have your DNA.
And then they'll replace you in your sleep with a clone for civil disobedience.
it's been obama's secret plan all along

[bergmann620]

yes, we could. I don't see why that matters.

Because we don't. Because, when the news camera goes away, nobody really cares that much- at least until a drunk driver or a shooting nut kills someone we care about.

I get that you don't care about freedoms you don't care about being restricted. I do. Whether they are freedoms you cherish, or ones I do, I will defend them all until I have been given a very good reason to not do so.

[Wells]

That has nothing to do with the merits of regulated weapons though. I mean just because you can come up with some conceivable law that isn't on the books somewhere else, that's not a counter argument.

I get that you don't care about freedoms you don't care about being restricted.

[Catta]

That has nothing to do with the merits of regulated weapons though. I mean just because you can come up with some conceivable law that isn't on the books somewhere else, that's not a counter argument.

It would probably fit right into the plot of American teen horror movies.
*throws themselves into the car and blows into the tube*
"Oh noes, we cannot start the car. Oh, why did we fall to temptations and had sex and alcohol"

God damn catholic principles of sin permeating Hollywood...

[bergmann620]

That has nothing to do with the merits of regulated weapons though. I mean just because you can come up with some conceivable law that isn't on the books somewhere else, that's not a counter argument.

I'm not arguing against gun regulations. I'm arguing against the reason for increased gun regulations, which is either, "I don't give a fuck about guns, so why do I care if others that do lose some of their freedoms." or "I think we should do everything we can to save every life!"

In case #1, I think these people should either expand their perspective beyond themselves, or DIAF.

In case #2, I think that they should probably aim their efforts toward the most effective targets, and statistically, 'Assault Weapons' are not even close.

Roll your eyes all you want. As far as I can see, you're still arguing in favor of further reducing freedoms in regards to firearms as a reaction to what amounts to a statistically insignificant cause of death. (I am not trying to be insensitive to the victims or victims' families, but the number of people killed annually by ALL rifles, not merely the ones considered 'assault weapons' is, statistically, less than a rounding error. Further, the total number of guns used in crime, compared to those owned legally and not used in crime, is also miniscule.

The actual numbers behind this entire debate are insignificant to the point of absurdity.

[Wells]

I'm not arguing against gun regulations. I'm arguing against the reason for increased gun regulations, which is either, "I don't give a fuck about guns, so why do I care if others that do lose some of their freedoms." or "I think we should do everything we can to save every life!"

Or maybe its, guns are very dangerous so perhaps we should regulate them in ways that does not restrict the legitimate uses of guns and hampers the illegitimate uses.

[Svifnymr]

Or maybe its, guns are very dangerous so perhaps we should regulate them in ways that does not restrict the legitimate uses of guns and hampers the illegitimate uses.

They are quite regulated right now. The cosmetic awb achieved nothing in connecticut, so what else would you like to try?

Either way though, the proposals are not about regulating an item, they're restricting it and removing it from the market. An Assault Weapons Ban is different than an Assault Weapons Licensing Act. There's no proposal to introduce a federal high capacity magazine license or regulate them in any way, simply to ban the manufacture of new ones.

And of course, it depends on your definition of "legitimate use", an opinion on which would probably vary quite a bit between different people.

---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 09:15 PM ----------

If you actually need more than a couple of shots to defend yourself. What do you think you would actually be up against? Nor do I mean hide.

I'm in Florida, so a "hurricane gun" is not a foreign concept to me. It has been quite a while since things were really bad, but Andrew had many folks with their semi auto rifles at the ready. Looting and violence following Wilma was very hushed up. (I lived in a good area, and there were 3 stores nearby that were fine right after the storm, but "damaged" 12 hours later. 2 were just windows/product, 1 was burned quite badly. Could have been insurance fraud of course, but the storm didn't do much direct damage like Andrew.)

[Wells]

You know of common uses for firearms aside from entertainment and self defense that would be called legitimate?

What I want with firearms is this, and some of this we already have, but needs to be tightened:

No firearms for convicts deemed at risk of repeat offenses.
Waiting periods for all gun purchases.
Registration for all gun sales under threat of serious jail time.
Mandatory background checks for all purchases.
Restrictions on magazine/clip size and a ban on guns with a fixed magazine exceeding certain capacities.
Mandatory gun use and ownership classes provided at government expense.

[Catta]

I find it thought provoking that there is such a thing as a "hurricane gun" in a first world country. I dont think i know an instance where there has been looting due to natural disaster in this country.

[vastx]

I find it thought provoking that there is such a thing as a "hurricane gun" in a first world country. I dont think i know an instance where there has been looting due to natural disaster in this country.

Some areas of this country are far from first world.

[SirRobin]

I'm in Florida, so a "hurricane gun" is not a foreign concept to me. It has been quite a while since things were really bad, but Andrew had many folks with their semi auto rifles at the ready. Looting and violence following Wilma was very hushed up. (I lived in a good area, and there were 3 stores nearby that were fine right after the storm, but "damaged" 12 hours later. 2 were just windows/product, 1 was burned quite badly. Could have been insurance fraud of course, but the storm didn't do much direct damage like Andrew.)

Still don't need more than a shot or two to defend yourself or your home. Bolt-action rifle or pump-action shotgun at worst. Looting is, well, looting. If dropping one doesn't scare the rest off? Then they've got the firepower and or determination to take you out whether you've got a semiautomatic or not. Not to mention that I don't recall ever seeing, or even hearing, of any smash and grab with too much of either.

---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 08:43 PM ----------

I find it thought provoking that there is such a thing as a "hurricane gun" in a first world country. I dont think i know an instance where there has been looting due to natural disaster in this country.

Oh there definitely is. However, again, its not like they are starting a war. They are usually little better than scavengers going after whatever looks valuable and easy.

[Svifnymr]

You know of common uses for firearms aside from entertainment and self defense that would be called legitimate?

You acknowledge entertainment as legitimate? Lots of folks do not.

What I want with firearms is this, and some of this we already have, but needs to be tightened:

No firearms for convicts deemed at risk of repeat offenses.

Currently, convicted of a felony or misdemeanor crime of domestic violence bars you from possessing a firearm legally. The main issue with this in most cases is not the law itself, so much as the ways to work around "a conviction". Lots of "no contest, adjudication withheld" cases for instance.

Mandatory background checks for all purchases.

Registration for all gun sales under threat of serious jail time.

I'd like there to be at least a system whereby you COULD register a transfer. Currently in many jurisdictions, it's not an option. (Except for going through a dealer, I mean. You can't just do it yourself via any governmental system.)

Waiting periods for all gun purchases.

Is it needed once you already possess firearms? (Florida has a 3 day for handguns, unless you have a concealed weapons license)

Restrictions on magazine/clip size and a ban on guns with a fixed magazine exceeding certain capacities.

What about as I mentioned, a license for high capacity magazines? Or, rather than an arbitrary number, something like "a magazine which extends more than half an inch below the magazine well"?
Also curious on why a fixed magazine matters to you? Those california ar15's are a bitch to load, it'd be faster to reload 10 round mags over and over again anyway.

Mandatory gun use and ownership classes provided at government expense.

And storage.

If such a policy encompassing what you've said above was instituted, would it also work in states that are currently much more restricted in some ways than what is proposed, to lighten the restrictions? (Such as NYC, or NJ, et cetera)

---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 09:45 PM ----------

I find it thought provoking that there is such a thing as a "hurricane gun" in a first world country. I dont think i know an instance where there has been looting due to natural disaster in this country.

When was the last time you had a catastrophe? Bad circumstances can bring out the worst in people and some of these people were not very nice people to start with.

---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 09:49 PM ----------

Still don't need more than a shot or two to defend yourself or your home. Bolt-action rifle or pump-action shotgun at worst. Looting is, well, looting. If dropping one doesn't scare the rest off? Then they've got the firepower and or determination to take you out whether you've got a semiautomatic or not. Not to mention that I don't recall ever seeing, or even hearing, of any smash and grab with too much of either.

Mob rule requires more than 1 shot, especially when stuff is obviously 1 shot. Liberty City riots for instance had quite a few problems. Again, both that and Andrew were a long time ago, but how far away are they from happening again?

Oh there definitely is. However, again, its not like they are starting a war. They are usually little better than scavengers going after whatever looks valuable and easy.

Opportunists come in a lot of variety.

[vastx]

I'm sure many gun control advocates (regardless of how far you want lawmakers to go) have seen the video of the senior citizen who shot at would-be-robbers. I don't mention that case for anecdotal reasons. But to ask this - do you think that sort of action is wrong? Do you believe that it's vigilantism and people should just give up their money, because money can be replaced, lives can't?

I've heard this sorta attitude lately since the Sandy Hook and Aurora massacres. Is that the most logical reaction in your minds?

[Wells]

Currently, convicted of a felony or misdemeanor crime of domestic violence bars you from possessing a firearm legally.

In many areas you can eventually have this changed. The NRA saw to that.

Is it needed once you already possess firearms? (Florida has a 3 day for handguns, unless you have a concealed weapons license)

Better to keep it in place. If you're collecting firearms than 3-4 days isn't going to represent a serious hurdle.

What about as I mentioned, a license for high capacity magazines? Or, rather than an arbitrary number, something like "a magazine which extends more than half an inch below the magazine well"?

No, flat ban, no exceptions.

Also curious on why a fixed magazine matters to you? Those california ar15's are a bitch to load, it'd be faster to reload 10 round mags over and over again anyway.

The idea is to ban high capacity weapons. On many that means just banning mag sizes but on certain guns that's a fixed component.

[Catta]

When was the last time you had a catastrophe? Bad circumstances can bring out the worst in people and some of these people were not very nice people to start with.

13 years ago i guess...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Anatol

Not that we haven't had hurricanes since then.