Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Moadar]

Assault rifles are used in less than 5% of of all VIOLENT crimes involving a firearm. Simple concept, not sure why it's so hard for people to grasp.

Oh because some father from Conn. is telling congress they are bad, because his son died, by handgun, none the less. So then the idiotic media force feeds you made up statistics, then they plaster the news about shootings, all of which were done with a handgun, but still bash assault rifles.

Speaking of Conn. did they finally pick a story and stick with it?

[Eroginous]

Speaking of Conn. did they finally pick a story and stick with it?

Yeah, it was the butler in the library with a wrench.

[Buckwald]

You missed the point.

Just quoting this because I laughed. I was spot on with your response. No substance, I'm sure you feel happy about that. Thanks!

[Wells]

Just quoting this because I laughed. I was spot on with your response. No substance, I'm sure you feel happy about that. Thanks!

Irony be thy name.

[Buckwald]

Irony be thy name.

Hey, Wells, serious question. Do you enjoy not being right? I mean, I showed you that the whole basis for banning assault rifles is faulty, and yet you ignored it. Does it upset you when you really can't use that link of yours in your signature to further your argument?

[Wells]

I didn't say a thing about banning assault rifles. I was pointing out the error in logic that was being made in "this law is bad because criminals won't follow it".

[Buckwald]

I didn't say a thing about banning assault rifles. I was pointing out the error in logic that was being made in "this law is bad because criminals won't follow it".

But, I never said a law was bad. You picked out one part of an argument that you could formulate a cute rebuttal to. Unfortunately, your point was null because I never argued that. I said that any new law will be ineffective because it wouldn't be followed by those who break the law. Which is a true statement. The US has a hard time upholding it's current gun laws, so implementing new guns laws will do no good. But with that being said, and don't ignore this part (which you normally do) we need to be way more strict with our current gun laws and those who violate them. Also, the US should focus on getting to the root of the problem not some reactionary knee jerk policy targeted at the wrong thing.

[Wells]

But, I never said a law was bad.

The argument SHOULD NOT be a blanket ban on "assault style" weapons, or limiting magazines to X number of bullets. Regardless of any new law passed criminals will break them. So, all you are effectively doing is punishing those who abide by the law.

This specifically is what I was addressing. Its a circular argument and it seems to come up every 5 pages on this thread.

Of course we need to be more strict with our gun control laws that are in place. But that isn't an argument against new laws in and of itself.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The US has a hard time upholding it's current gun laws, so implementing new guns laws will do no good.

Background checks implemented by FFL's are upheld, and incredibly effective. If we implemented a new gun law, requiring background checks between private sellers, it would also be effective.

[Wells]

Background checks implemented by FFL's are upheld, and incredibly effective. If we implemented a new gun law, requiring background checks between private sellers, it would also be effective.

Not to mention there are a lot of laws on the books courtesy on the NRA that make it harder to uphold the law.

[Buckwald]

This specifically is what I was addressing. Its a circular argument and it seems to come up every 5 pages on this thread.

Of course we need to be more strict with our gun control laws that are in place. But that isn't an argument against new laws in and of itself.

But, there is no good or logical answer FOR more gun laws. Saying "well our currents don't work" is not an answer.

Background checks implemented by FFL's are upheld, and incredibly effective. If we implemented a new gun law, requiring background checks between private sellers, it would also be effective.

Not really. A private seller would have to do a background check, obviously if it was a felon, the seller wouldn't sell right? No one is to say they won't. A cash transaction is untraceable. I know that's an extreme negative outlook, but you need to look at all possible outcomes.

I'm all for a standard nation wide/level background check. I wish it would check every state, town, county Police department. Some would gasp in shock that I said this, but I had to get checked when I entered the military, so if it's good for them, it's good for everyone else.

Not to mention there are a lot of laws on the books courtesy on the NRA that make it harder to uphold the law.

You can't blame the NRA solely. The DNC and GOP both have strong supports and constituents on both sides of the isle. If anything blame the politicians who are trying to ram large bills through. Incrementation is how public policy gets done.

[Wells]

But, there is no good or logical answer FOR more gun laws. Saying "well our currents don't work" is not an answer.

So you think the current set of laws is as good as it can be? There is no way in which to improve gun control via new or different laws?

[Buckwald]

So you think the current set of laws is as good as it can be? There is no way in which to improve gun control via new or different laws?

Not just adding on top of them. Which is what you suggest. Now, if you were amend our current laws, plus actually enforce them. I'd be all for it. I'm not for stacking a heaping pile of shit on top of an already huge pile of shit.

[Wells]

Not just adding on top of them. Which is what you suggest

Where did I suggest that?

[Buckwald]

In the quote I just quoted. You just suggested new or different laws.

[Wells]

And if we want to talk about "actually enforcing the laws on the books" then maybe we could do less to hamstring law enforcement.

For example, under current laws the bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions.

When law enforcement officers recover a gun and serial number, workers at the bureau’s National Tracing Center here — a windowless warehouse-style building on a narrow road outside town — begin making their way through a series of phone calls, asking first the manufacturer, then the wholesaler and finally the dealer to search their files to identify the buyer of the firearm.

About a third of the time, the process involves digging through records sent in by companies that have closed, in many cases searching by hand through cardboard boxes filled with computer printouts, hand-scrawled index cards or even water-stained sheets of paper.

The bureau’s struggles are epitomized by its lack of a full-time director since Congress, prodded by the N.R.A., decided that the position should require Senate confirmation.

While other law enforcement agencies like the F.B.I. have benefited from greatly increased budgets and staffing, the A.T.F.’s budget has remained largely stagnant, increasing to about $1.1 billion in the 2012 fiscal year from just over $850 million a decade ago.

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, for example, prohibits A.T.F. agents from making more than one unannounced inspection per year of licensed gun dealers.The law also reduced the falsification of records by dealers to a misdemeanor and put in place vague language defining what it meant to “engage in business” without a dealer’s license.

All of that needs to change.

---------- Post added 2013-03-24 at 10:08 PM ----------

In the quote I just quoted. You just suggested new or different laws.

I've suggested time and time again that we need a more comprehensive background check system. That is a different law. Nor does whether I've called for just more laws or changing existing laws (though I've called for both) have any bearing on the merit of those ideas.

[Buckwald]

I've suggested time and time again that we need a more comprehensive background check system. That is a different law. Nor does whether
I've called for just more laws or changing existing laws (though I've called for both) have any bearing on the merit of those ideas.

I'm not going to disagree with you about what hamstringing law enforcement causes. We should go back and adjust them (especially the exclusionary rule). But, our disagreement stems from the fact that it's proven that adding laws in a reactionary manner does not prevent nor lower violent crime. Wanting to ban assault style rifles because of their lethality is a weak argument when Handguns and Shotguns are used the most in gun caused homicides. There is no logical argument to ban rifles over handguns or shotguns.

[Wells]

does not prevent nor lower violent crime.

the UK has a far more broad definition of violent crime than we do. You're comparing apples and oranges.

And I"m not sure why you keep going on about assault rifles. I haven't said a single thing about them.

There is no logical argument to ban rifles over handguns or shotguns.

There is under Heller, in the form of common use.

[GreatOak]

the UK has a far more broad definition of violent crime than we do. You're comparing apples and oranges.

And I"m not sure why you keep going on about assault rifles. I haven't said a single thing about them.


There is under Heller, in the form of common use.

Common use protects functionality and guns commonly owned for lawful purposes, which AR-15s definitely are.

http://hlpronline.com/2010/04/johnson_commonuse/

[Wells]

Common use protects functionality and guns commonly owned for lawful purposes, which AR-15s definitely are.

http://hlpronline.com/2010/04/johnson_commonuse/

A lot depends on how you interpret common use. For instance you could ban specific guns under one interpretation of Heller, so long as you didn't stop people from getting any gun to perform a legal activity with.