Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

I'm against criminal access to guns, why aren't you?

You really need to stop with this response, you're making the anti-gun crowd look bad (they do have some valid arguments.)

[Rocko9]

You really need to stop with this response, you're making the anti-gun crowd look bad (they do have some valid arguments.)

Bhut tinykawng, it's fo the childrenz. We gawta hide the guns instead of teachin

[Tinykong]

Do you support expanding background check, then I'll answer you're question.

I've got a simple line of questioning I'm hoping you'll answer, because I swear I've asked this before and not gotten an answer. If I missed it, then please, indulge my laziness of not searching for it.

Do you own a car?

[Roelath]

I'm against criminal access to guns, why aren't you?

"Some people think messing with 2nd "right to bear arms" means we want to take away ALL their guns and not just some of it."

You're in favor of limiting and/or hampering the ability of citizens acquiring firearms legally. First page you supported this... and you have Piers Morgan as the first video and if he is the source... it leaves much to question as to what you deem to be a proper weapons in the hands of citizens.

[starlord]

It's cute that you think that you're the arbiter of which variables matter and which ones don't. It's a good thing real scientists don't cherry-pick their criteria and data to fit their theories, eh?

Now try to run a study examining the differences in culture, cultural interaction, economic disparity, relative personal freedom, prevalence of organized crime, political beliefs, etc., etc.

You know, all the things that might ultimately lead someone to a path of violence. Then statistically weigh those out and evaluate whether or not violence is increased simply because of the presence of firearms, or if the violence is there regardless of the presence of firearms.

thats the thing; you cant really account for all the variables that lead to violence.
you can account for the presence of guns making that violence deadlier.

That's exactly what I said. I said that a database of cars isn't as much of an issue because the government isn't going to confiscate cars when it can just control travel instead. The same doesn't hold true for firearms. Thanks for agreeing with me.

completely missed the point.

Let me help your reading comprehension. It doesn't say that anywhere. What I said was that the centralization of records doesn't help. The ATF doesn't (obviously) need a centralized database in order to conduct its traces. Gun traces already work across state lines, regardless of the absence of some centralized database, because the ATF still has authority in all jurisdictions that house the localized records.

the whole point of a database is to reduce the amount of manpower needed to conduct such investigations, which will be needed with the higher volume of them if gun registration is implemented.
really your boogeymen are getting tiresome. be logical.

[Skroe]

Thankfully, you don't.



I'll propose this to you, since the question is usually dodged. Would you be willing to install (at your expense) and maintain (at your expense) an interlock device on your vehicle's ignition, and be required to pass an alcohol test every time you wanted to start your vehicle?

If it could sense it through the skin? Or through the air?

Abso-fricken-loutely.

100% Yes. If you could somehow make it so that cars have a sensor that could tell if the driver is intoxicated and refuse to start of he is, that should 100% be mandatory in all vehicles. As older cars are retired / break down, this will drive down drunk driving incidents until the day comes when the vast majority of cars have them (the way the vast majority of cars have post-1990 advancements nowdays).

In fact the person who creates this I think, will make an obscene amount of money licencing the patents alone to auto manufacturers.


As for the "at my expense part", I mean... I guess you can say I already "at my expense" maintain the airbag system of my car... it's baked into the price of the car. These limitations on guns should be similarly baked into gun ownership.

You have a right to own a gun. But I'm looking at the constitution, and nowhere does it say easy or cheaply. Now you may say "well what about voting infringements", well the answer is simple: there is a explicit prohibition in the constitution on erecting barriers to voting, namely the 24th Amendment. There is no such Amendment for gun ownership. So it can be legal, but it no way needs to be cheap or easy.

[Tinykong]

If it could sense it through the skin? Or through the air?

Abso-fricken-loutely.

100% Yes. If you could somehow make it so that cars have a sensor that could tell if the driver is intoxicated and refuse to start of he is, that should 100% be mandatory in all vehicles. As older cars are retired / break down, this will drive down drunk driving incidents until the day comes when the vast majority of cars have them (the way the vast majority of cars have post-1990 advancements nowdays).

In fact the person who creates this I think, will make an obscene amount of money licencing the patents alone to auto manufacturers.

No, there isn't such a thing as a magical interlock device. You get to blow into it like a breathalyzer, and when it breaks, spend a few hundred bucks having your car towed to a shop to have to replaced.

[Skroe]

I like how someone just advocated that we treat gun owners like sex offenders by having a national registry. I'm glad that my right to privacy ends where your feelings begin.

There is no constitutional right to privacy. Invoking that as a defense against a registry is like invoking the Tooth Fairy. Our "right to privacy" comes from a collected reading of the federalist papers, the 9th amendment and supreme court ruling pushing the Government out of non-public matters (like sex / sodomy). But there is no explicit right to privacy.

This is important, because not laid out, there is room for twisting the standard, for example with warrantless wiretapping. It is legal because, as the Supreme Court found, there is no explicit right to privacy, so Congress legislated something legal. Were there a privacy amendment, that would be a different story - it can't be superseded by law, except by another Amendment.

If you want a constitutional right to privacy, push for a constitutional amendment. Just keep in mind people like me will try and double dip, and push along Second Amendment repeal.

[ugotownd]

If it could sense it through the skin? Or through the air?

Abso-fricken-loutely.

100% Yes. If you could somehow make it so that cars have a sensor that could tell if the driver is intoxicated and refuse to start of he is, that should 100% be mandatory in all vehicles. As older cars are retired / break down, this will drive down drunk driving incidents until the day comes when the vast majority of cars have them (the way the vast majority of cars have post-1990 advancements nowdays).

In fact the person who creates this I think, will make an obscene amount of money licencing the patents alone to auto manufacturers.


As for the "at my expense part", I mean... I guess you can say I already "at my expense" maintain the airbag system of my car... it's baked into the price of the car. These limitations on guns should be similarly baked into gun ownership.

You have a right to own a gun. But I'm looking at the constitution, and nowhere does it say easy or cheaply. Now you may say "well what about voting infringements", well the answer is simple: there is a explicit prohibition in the constitution on erecting barriers to voting, namely the 24th Amendment. There is no such Amendment for gun ownership. So it can be legal, but it no way needs to be cheap or easy.

Your the same one that wants a website that lists all gun owners and weapons owned like a sex registry. Could you make it easier to tell a criminal where to hit to get a gun and where to hit to rob a house with no gun owners.

You don't get the easy way out with a sensor in new cars. It would be all cars even old ones and its your responsibility to install the big clumsy unit or your car is confiscated.

[stabetha]

You have a right to own a gun. But I'm looking at the constitution, and nowhere does it say easy or cheaply. Now you may say "well what about voting infringements", well the answer is simple: there is a explicit prohibition in the constitution on erecting barriers to voting, namely the 24th Amendment. There is no such Amendment for gun ownership. So it can be legal, but it no way needs to be cheap or easy.

that is incorrect the 2nd amendment says exactly that-
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

infringed - past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
Verb
1 Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

[Eroginous]

thats the thing; you cant really account for all the variables that lead to violence.
you can account for the presence of guns making that violence deadlier.

Let me point something out to you. Over 250 million firearms in the US. Over 300 million people in the US. Only ~10k annual firearm related deaths per year in the US. Only ~0.0003% of the total US population die because of firearms each year deaths. Conversely, 99.9997% of the US population does not die because of firearms each year. The overwhelming majority of firearms are not used in gun violence, and the overwhelming majority of firearms owners do not commit violent crimes with their firearms. Not to mention, gun crime is down 54% over the past 20 years - it's at a 20 year LOW.

So what are we talking about here? Outliers. You have extreme outliers that are responsible for gun related deaths. Yet you think best possible way to hinder these extreme outliers, is by enacting legislature that puts a burden on responsible gun owners, hoping it will trickle down to the outliers responsible for these crimes.

Just to give you an example of how ridiculous your point of view is, let's assume for a minute we hired one new police officer for each gun related death that happens in the US, and tasked them investigating illegal gun activities such as straw sales and gun thefts. That would amount to ~10k new jobs all over the country, and give each police department one extra officer to solve one gun related crime each year, effectively accounting for all gun related homicides each year.

Proportionally, that's a TON of extra manpower when you consider how understaffed some police precincts are. It would also directly address your pet problem without spending a ton of extra money on an elaborate system that might not even do what you expect it to.

[Skroe]

No, there isn't such a thing as a magical interlock device. You get to blow into it like a breathalyzer, and when it breaks, spend a few hundred bucks having your car towed to a shop to have to replaced.

Reading comprehension. I said someone should create it. And then it should become mandatory. Because its technology that improves safety. You know. Just like the gun technology / control laws the Gun Hobbyists reject because it mildly inconveniences them.

Just like we register cars and drivers, so should gun owners via a nationally searchable online registry so we know who the gun owners in our community are. Every person who has made an argument against it in this thread has either made a fool of themselves in the process or wished-upon-a-fairy (like the non-existent constitutional right to privacy).

Someone said that such a registry would treat gun owners like sex offenders. I fully, 100%, embrace that. A child being inside a home with a gun in it is every bit as dangerous as being near a home with a sex offender in it. They are dangerous items and the community has a right to know who owns, them and how many.

---------- Post added 2013-03-02 at 12:57 AM ----------

that is incorrect the 2nd amendment says exactly that-
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

infringed - past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
Verb
1 Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Infringed means blocked in that late 18th century context, clearly.

It says nothing about making it easy. We already "infringe" on gun rights unde by requiring 30 day waiting periods and things like that.

Existing gun laws already proved you wrong.

[Rocko9]

Someone said that such a registry would treat gun owners like sex offenders. I fully, 100%, embrace that. A child being inside a home with a gun in it is every bit as dangerous as being near a home with a sex offender in it. They are dangerous items and the community has a right to know who owns, them and how many.

I disagree, if you teach children about them and to respect them, it removes "bad curiosities". I've taught a number of kids how to shoot, they learn safety quick. They also know that they can just ask their dad if they have a question. You would also make it more obvious who doesn't have protection.

[Gemini Sunrise]

You would also make it more obvious who doesn't have protection.

That's what I am conflicted about. If criminals have an easy time seeing who is armed, they could either go one of two ways. Find a house, if it's not in the registry, ransack the shit out of it. Either that, or take the risky route of going for the big prize (in which they may or may not be killed).

Quite unsure of what I'd prefer.

[Radux]

Someone said that such a registry would treat gun owners like sex offenders. I fully, 100%, embrace that. A child being inside a home with a gun in it is every bit as dangerous as being near a home with a sex offender in it. They are dangerous items and the community has a right to know who owns, them and how many.

With that line of thinking, though, wouldn't it be equally as important to share medical records with everyone, so we know who may have any sort of disease in our neighborhood? It's all in the name of safety, right?

[Skroe]

Your the same one that wants a website that lists all gun owners and weapons owned like a sex registry. Could you make it easier to tell a criminal where to hit to get a gun and where to hit to rob a house with no gun owners.

You don't get the easy way out with a sensor in new cars. It would be all cars even old ones and its your responsibility to install the big clumsy unit or your car is confiscated.

Well the house has a gun. I thought it was protected?!?!

Are you saying that *gasp* anonymity and blending in an otherwise unarmed community offers greater protection than your hobbyist rifle?

As for cars, there is a long history of grandfathering, for example with over the shoulder seat belts. So I do "get off the hook". With guns, I'm not talking about requiring guns to have complicated reloading schemes yet (like requiring a twist of a screwdriver to "unlock" the clip, necessitating it be placed on a flat purpose). We're not there yet.

I'm talking about registration systems, annual inspection, and insurance.

This is why gun hobbyists are losing the argument... their arguments are so poor...

---------- Post added 2013-03-02 at 01:04 AM ----------

With that line of thinking, though, wouldn't it be equally as important to share medical records with everyone, so we know who may have any sort of disease in our neighborhood? It's all in the name of safety, right?

Actually the law is way ahead of you.

If you have certain communicable diseases still in a stage where they can go from human to human, the local authorities are required to alert your neighbors.

Furthermore consider, when blind and deaf people live near major roads, what does your town do? They put up blindness and deafness signs.

Your analogy is awful. The United States has a long history of public health superseding almost every right in the book, even something as basic as the right of freedom to movement (quarantines).

[Radux]

Actually the law is way ahead of you.

If you have certain communicable diseases still in a stage where they can go from human to human, the local authorities are required to alert your neighbors.

How about any disease that can be transferred? STD's?

How about neighbors that have potentially dangerous members of the household due to mental disease? Should we ignore that?

There's a plethora of diseases out there that people should be protected from. Safety first.


Seriously, it's not like all gun owners just have their guns laying around, loaded, ready to be taken. That's the whole encouragement for safety. I personally wouldn't feel like a responsible gun owner if I didn't have a safe. I'm the only person who knows the combination. It's not like I flaunt them around to threaten or endanger those around me.

[Skroe]

That's what I am conflicted about. If criminals have an easy time seeing who is armed, they could either go one of two ways. Find a house, if it's not in the registry, ransack the shit out of it. Either that, or take the risky route of going for the big prize (in which they may or may not be killed).

Quite unsure of what I'd prefer.

Just push for better policing.

My best friend tested to be a cop in like 25 communities in Pennsylvania, Maryland and North Carolina last year. He often scored in the top 95% percent of the testing class, but he didn't get the job because he lacked "Military points" that allow people with military backgrounds to boost their otherwise lower score and jump ahead (he did get a job offer eventually but decided to join the military instead).

These tests, he said, were packed with people. And a lot of people did well on them. But local law enforcement were often recruiting for 7-15 positions out of 600 apps.

There are a LOT more people who want to be cops, who COULD be cops, if the money existed to allow the Police to employ them. People say "they need a gun because police react slow". I say, pay more taxes, let your local community hire more cops - clearly people want the job - and drive that number way down.

[Gemini Sunrise]

Just push for better policing.

My best friend tested to be a cop in like 25 communities in Pennsylvania, Maryland and North Carolina last year. He often scored in the top 95% percent of the testing class, but he didn't get the job because he lacked "Military points" that allow people with military backgrounds to boost their otherwise lower score and jump ahead (he did get a job offer eventually but decided to join the military instead).

These tests, he said, were packed with people. And a lot of people did well on them. But local law enforcement were often recruiting for 7-15 positions out of 600 apps.

There are a LOT more people who want to be cops, who COULD be cops, if the money existed to allow the Police to employ them. People say "they need a gun because police react slow". I say, pay more taxes, let your local community hire more cops - clearly people want the job - and drive that number way down.

Still ain't sure how much more cops would do it. Unless you have a cop for every street corner, the response time is going to be too damn slow to matter when you need it.

But it's obvious you aren't gonna be swayed, knowing your post history, so I'm not going to debate the point any longer. Pissing on a forest fire, as it were.

Nothing wrong with that. You and I both know our opinions on the internet on an issue such as this are of equal importance (ie. None).

[PhaelixWW]

thats the thing; you cant really account for all the variables that lead to violence.

So rather than scientifically and statistically estimating the variables, you'd rather ignore them completely? Sounds like a really good way to make a comparison.

Or have you jumped conversational tracks, yet again, and stopped talking about statistical comparisons?

the whole point of a database is to reduce the amount of manpower needed to conduct such investigations, which will be needed with the higher volume of them if gun registration is implemented.

They amount of manpower required isn't huge. A reduction won't be needed. Passing a UBC law wouldn't result in more traces, merely a more accurate end result of a trace.