Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Eroginous]

You are absolutely right. Seat belts don't possess some magical power where by presence alone they become effective. You have to strap it on in order to measure its effectiveness.

No, you don't have to strap it on to measure it's effectiveness. If a guy who wasn't wearing his seat belt, gets in an accident and dies, that seat belt was not effective at stopping his death, regardless of whether or not he was actually wearing it. This statement is a measurement regarding the effectiveness of a seat belt in a specific instance.

You can attempt to ignore such a measurement, but saying that we can't make it is both illogical and flat out wrong.

So who do you blame for the death: the seat belt, or the individual who forgot to strap it on? Because you keep blaming background checks, when what you should be blaming are people that fail to administer background checks, or the absence of laws requiring background checks.

I'm not blaming background checks for anything. I'm simply pointing out how, when, and where they are not an effective in their stated purpose. You're choosing to selectively ignore that, instead focusing on very few instances they actually are effective, and using that as a prop to push for more background checks. You're engaging in special pleading to try and stack the argument in favor of more background checks, in other words.

In the meantime, incidents involving people who shouldn't have guns continue to happen daily, while our law makers fumble around with more 'feel good bullshit' type laws to appease potential voters in upcoming elections.

Because when they're administered, they're pretty fucking effective.

But that's just it. They are already being administered as much as they possibly can be (with any reasonable expectation). They aren't effective enough to be fulfilling their stated goal, and pushing for more is a waste of time. Instead we should be doing more to enforce the laws we already have.

No better results results than they already do?

You mean we could stop an additional 60 thousand criminals each year from obtaining firearms?

Where do I sign up?

You do realize that the only people left to require background checks from are law abiding private citizens, right? Many of which are already submitting to background checks through licensed dealers even when it comes to private sales. The numbers you are wishing for are already being factored into the number of background checks that get flagged.

Why do you think I stated they won't be any more effective than they currently are?

[Deadvolcanoes]

If a guy who wasn't wearing his seat belt, gets in an accident and dies, that seat belt was not effective at stopping his death.

Seat belts are not supposed to be effective if you don't wear them. That's not their purpose.

Background checks are not supposed to be effective if you don't apply them. That's not their purpose.

This is the problem. For some reason you believe that the purpose of background checks is to stop ALL criminals from obtaining a firearm. It's not.

It's purpose is to stop all criminals that apply for a background check from obtaining a firearm. That's why we should expand background checks universally.

Background checks can't stop a criminal from getting a gun if they don't apply for a background check. Are you under the impression that they can?

You're engaging in special pleading

There are literally zero negative effects of background checks that I'm failing to address, so yeah, not special pleading.

[Twotonsteak]

New York, in a rush to pass new gun control legislation following Sandy Hook, has hit a couple "bumps" with it's "high-capacity" magazine ban. The ban prohibits new magazines that hold more than seven bullets. (Older magazines are "grandfathered" in. But you're still not supposed to put more than seven bullets in them.)

The first came when Republican Assemblyman Al Graf, a former NYC police officer, pointed out that the law had no exemption for the State Police. As a result every NY State Police officer is, technically, in violation of the law. (Admittedly odds are no one would, or should, charge them.)

The second, most recent problem, was highlighted by the bills champion, Gov. Cuomo, himself. "“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine...that doesn't exist. So you really have no practical option."

The statement is not, entirely, accurate. There ARE seven-round magazines. However most gun manufacturers have not had a need to make them, except for limited uses, because no state's required them until now. And no manufacturer has any plans to make them for the NY region.

Governor Cuomo's solution is to reword the law so that ten-round magazines are, again, legal. However you will only, legally, be able to load seven rounds in to the magazine. After that, depending on the number of rounds and whether you are home or outside, you are penalized with anything from a fine or up to a year in jail.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ont-exist.html
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/17/cu...ool-shootings/

Governor Cuomo is a prime representation of what every gun-rights activist fears. A political figure using a tragic event to shape laws about a topic he doesn't really understand. The result is a law that has adverse effects that even the creator admits he didn't intend. And when you have to apologize and correct your new law, twice, for mistakes born out of ignorance, you start to lose any credibility that you know what you're talking about.

_______________________________________

I understand how these forums work. I fully expect to be attacked as a "Conservative" or a "gun-nut." Especially since my post points out the mistakes made by a Democratic Governor. So I'm going to head that off by laying out a few facts.
1. I'm a Libertarian. Not a Republican. Not a Democrat. (And, honestly, I don't like either of the two.)
2. I actually don't own a gun and I'm not a member of the NRA.
3. I don't like gun-control laws. Laws, new or old, are only obeyed by law-abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.
4. I'm not unreasonable. While I don't agree with gun-control I realize that some things, like the wide-scale abuse of a horrible tragedy to push an agenda, can't be fought so easily. And while I would never agree to a gun ban I would, as I have said previously, accept bans on magazines within reason. (Limiting your state to a magazine that isn't even sold there is not within reason.) I would also accept enhanced background checks without opposition.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I'm just waiting for somebody to invent a modular magazine wherein the bottom of it is made of strong but thin metal that folds upwards into the sides and a catch with a release to allow you to have an extension. It would obviously need some sort of wound up rollers on the sides to allow the rounds to still be forced upwards into the gun. That way you can have a 5-round magazine with 5-round extenders (that all have the same design to clip into each other) and give no fucks about magazine count limits.

[THE Bigzoman]

Ban guys? Yes!

What about mental health?

Meh, we'll address that later.

[obdigore]

Ban guys? Yes!

What about mental health?

Meh, we'll address that later.

A world of only women is a world I'd like to visit.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Governor Cuomo is a prime representation of what every gun owner fears.

I'm a gun owner, and I'm pretty sure I don't fear Governor Cuomo. Not in the least.

I have more than enough confidence in my local and federal courts to remedy any situation in which my rights have been infringed.

[Phookah]

New York, in a rush to pass new gun control legislation following Sandy Hook, has hit a couple "bumps" with it's "high-capacity" magazine ban. The ban prohibits new magazines that hold more than seven bullets. (Older magazines are "grandfathered" in. But you're still not supposed to put more than seven bullets in them.)

The first came when Republican Assemblyman Al Graf, a former NYC police officer, pointed out that the law had no exemption for the State Police. As a result every NY State Police officer is, technically, in violation of the law. (Admittedly odds are no one would, or should, charge them.)

The second, most recent problem, was highlighted by the bills champion, Gov. Cuomo, himself. "“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine...that doesn't exist. So you really have no practical option."

The statement is not, entirely, accurate. There ARE seven-round magazines. However most gun manufacturers have not had a need to make them, except for limited uses, because no state's required them until now. And no manufacturer has any plans to make them for the NY region.

Governor Cuomo's solution is to reword the law so that ten-round magazines are, again, legal. However you will only, legally, be able to load seven rounds in to the magazine. After that, depending on the number of rounds and whether you are home or outside, you are penalized with anything from a fine or up to a year in jail.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ont-exist.html
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/17/cu...ool-shootings/

Governor Cuomo is a prime representation of what every gun owner fears. A political figure using a tragic event to shape laws about a topic he doesn't really understand. The result is a law that has adverse effects that even the creator admits he didn't intend. And when you have to apologize and correct your new law, twice, for mistakes born out of ignorance, you start to lose any credibility that you know what you're talking about.

_______________________________________

I understand how these forums work. I fully expect to be attacked as a "Conservative" or a "gun-nut." Especially since my post points out the mistakes made by a Democratic Governor. So I'm going to head that off by laying out a few facts.
1. I'm a Libertarian. Not a Republican. Not a Democrat. (And, honestly, I don't like either of the two.)
2. I actually don't own a gun and I'm not a member of the NRA.
3. I don't like gun-control laws. Laws, new or old, are only obeyed by law-abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.
4. I'm not unreasonable. While I don't agree with gun-control I realize that some things, like the wide-scale abuse of a horrible tragedy to push an agenda, can't be fought so easily. And while I would never agree to a gun ban I would, as I have said previously, accept bans on magazines within reason. (Limiting your state to a magazine that isn't even sold there is not within reason.) I would also accept enhanced background checks without opposition.

Love everything you said up until then. "Criminals don't obey laws, so why make them?" is not an argument. Why have any law then? Might as well make murder legal, murderers don't follow the law.
Sorry if I ranted, that's my pet-peeve concerning gun-control.

[Belloc]

Does anyone honestly think that a magazine ban is going to prevent someone from killing a bunch of people? Sure, a 30-round clip is more convenient, but a backpack of clips is still a backpack of clips. If someone wants to murder a bunch of people, no gun/magazine ban is going to prevent it. Have we forgotten that there is an underground system for purchasing illegal weapons?

[Twotonsteak]

I'm a gun owner, and I'm pretty sure I don't fear Governor Cuomo. Not in the least.

I have more than enough confidence in my local and federal courts to remedy any situation in which my rights have been infringed.

Fair enough. That sentence was poorly worded. (A bit of irony, I suppose.) I imagine it should have read something to the effect of "gun-rights activist fears." I'll correct it.

[Belloc]

Love everything you said up until then. "Criminals don't obey laws, so why make them?" is not an argument. Why have any law then? Might as well make murder legal, murderers don't follow the law.
Sorry if I ranted, that's my pet-peeve concerning gun-control.

The problem is that someone hell-bent on killing people is not going to have trouble doing so with a smaller ammunition clip. More likely, they're going to use illegal clips anyway. In other words, this law punishes those that use their guns responsibly while it does absolutely nothing to someone who is going to break the law anyway.

[Mormolyce]

The statement is not, entirely, accurate. There ARE seven-round magazines. However most gun manufacturers have not had a need to make them, except for limited uses, because no state's required them until now. And no manufacturer has any plans to make them for the NY region.

Well obviously if they HAD implemented 7-round laws then those manufacturers would've made 7-round magazines. Or what, do gun manufacturers hate money?

3. I don't like gun-control laws. Laws, new or old, are only obeyed by law-abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.

So why do we have any laws?

[Twotonsteak]

Love everything you said up until then. "Criminals don't obey laws, so why make them?" is not an argument. Why have any law then? Might as well make murder legal, murderers don't follow the law.
Sorry if I ranted, that's my pet-peeve concerning gun-control.

This is also a fair comment.

Most new laws are already addressed by existing laws. Murder, for example, is already illegal. Generally speaking committing a crime, just about any crime, with a gun, is also already illegal. Clip size is irrelevant.

[Twotonsteak]

Well obviously if they HAD implemented 7-round laws then those manufacturers would've made 7-round magazines. Or what, do gun manufacturers hate money?



So why do we have any laws?

I believe you are under-estimating the amount of time and money needed to retool an assembly line. All just to service one state.

I suspect it would have been financially easier to just ignore that one state and continue producing clips for the other 49.

[Mormolyce]

The problem is that someone hell-bent on killing people is not going to have trouble doing so with a smaller ammunition clip.

You're right, the kinds of gun bans proposed in the US don't go nearly far enough due to gun control advocates having to compromise severely in the face of trenchant resistance from gun rights advocates.

---------- Post added 2013-03-22 at 04:10 AM ----------

I believe you are under-estimating the amount of time and money needed to retool an assembly line. All just to service one state.

I suspect it would have been financially easier to just ignore that one state and continue producing clips for the other 49.

So smaller companies spring up to fill the gap. Capitalism works!

[obdigore]

You're right, the kinds of gun bans proposed in the US don't go nearly far enough due to gun control advocates having to compromise severely in the face of trenchant resistance from gun rights advocates.

---------- Post added 2013-03-22 at 04:10 AM ----------



So smaller companies spring up to fill the gap. Capitalism works!

No, capitalism doesn't work when the GOP doesn't want it to. It only works when they are opposing something they don't like.

[Mormolyce]

Ban guys? Yes!

What about mental health?

Meh, we'll address that later.

Well I can't argue with that, the murder rate would plummet if we instituted a comprehensive guy ban.

[A Day to Remember]

A world of only women is a world I'd like to visit.

Does that mean there is no Feminism? If so id love to join ya!

[obdigore]

Does that mean there is no Feminism? If so id love to join ya!

It just means there are no other men around. Life as a breeding stud would be enjoyable. Although they would probably just harvest me multiple times a day. Unless they start cloning or have other sperm frozen, it would only have another generation or two before us humans start mutating.

[A Day to Remember]

It just means there are no other men around. Life as a breeding stud would be enjoyable. Although they would probably just harvest me multiple times a day. Unless they start cloning or have other sperm frozen, it would only have another generation or two before us humans start mutating.

Well yea, but no men = women are 'equal' so no feminism, ill join you in said world. And i think i could enjoy being harvested.