Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[GreatOak]

Guns aren't an "essential freedom" if they were "essential" they would be handed out very openly in the rest of the world too, they are a convenience freedom. That doesn't mean I want every-bodies guns taken away from them, just that they are more regulated so less people who are insane/a danger with them don't get them whilst anyone who is a mildly well adjusted person can still go and get one.

In America they are an essential freedom, being in the bill of rights and all. I don't care if other countries don't want them. I realize they have different histories and cultures so i dont peater them about their more restrictive gun laws. People who want to take away guns like the poster I responded to will have to climb a much higher mountain to do that here, and it would really help your cause for you to distance yourselves away from the more radical voices on the gun control side.

[Deleted]

In America they are an essential freedom, being I the bill of rights and all. I don't care if other countries don't want them. People who want to take away guns like the poster I responded to will have to climb a much higher mountain to do that here, and it would really help your cause for you to distance yourselves away from the more radical voices on the gun control side.

I don't think essential means what you think it means.

Absolutely necessary; extremely important

Unless you are being encircled by Bears or some shit, there ain't much essential about it.

I'm not debating the other persons sanity (or lack there of) but the use of the term "essential".

[Jaxi]

How the fuck am I suppose to support my claim with facts? The sample size is so increditable small in the first place and the surrounding conditions are different everytime, meaning that comparing them would be utterly useless. Unless someone starts shooting up a place on a daily basis, i'll never be able to support it with facts for at least 100 years. Rather than assume I need "facts" to support my claim, why don't you prove your argument with logically reasoning. If 2 killers are on a spree and for every second there goes one person escapes, who will get the most kills? The guy with a 6 ammo capacity gun or the gun with a 30 ammo capacity gun?

So you're choosing to substitute reality with your own thought processes? I see. Interesting tactic but let's compare.

Jared Loughner and his 33 round magazine killed 6 and injured 13.
Seung-Hui Cho and his 10/15 round magazines killed 33 and injured 17.

What? A man with smaller capacity magazines was able to kill and injure more people than one without? Inconceivable!

Your argument is fundamentally flawed because you're thinking about a situation in which the only variable is the size of the magazine. In reality, there are far, far more variables. No shooting is identical, so don't treat them as such.

I'm not questioning wether mass shootings can take place, i'm questioning wether one could reduce the severity of the mass shootings by limiting available ammo capacities, so you would have to reload a lot to inflict lots of damages.

Yilar I've posted this so many damn times now I've lost track, but we have studied the effects of an LCM ban in the states ('94 Assault Weapons/LCM ban) and it was not shown to be effective.

"Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence."

The Justice Department already studied this. You can't just snap your fingers and remove all the LCMs from the streets, there is too large of a stockpile. On top of that, with 3D printing starting to come into its' own, a ban might not even be able to stop the production and sale of these items. Rather than pursuing ineffective legislation, let's focus on tackling the rise in mass shootings instead of tackling the already falling gun violence.

[TZucchini]

People who want to take away guns like the poster I responded to...

I think you misunderstood. I don't want to take your gun away from you. I want to make you earn it.

[Jaxi]

Right. I understand your point, I just disagree with it.

You're basically saying, "In order to pass a law to reduce crime, we must first see an increase in crime, then react to it."

That is not what he is saying in the least. How did you even interpret that? He said we shouldn't pass laws based on nothing, but rather pass them based on studies to indicate that they will work. Nothing is being shown that they will work, so rather we're going off of overly simplistic thought experiments designed by people who neglect to look at the effects of past bans and still hold a mentality that guns operate like those in the movies.

[Svifnymr]

That doesn't really support the claim. Just because they trace guns successfully doesn't mean means to do so more easily and reliably are without merit.

They achieve a 90-95% rate of success with gun tracing via the current system, without knowing why the 10-5% is not successfully traced, it's hard to judge whether a centrallized system would prove an advantage worth the cost (in $, that is, not gun rights which you care nothing for). ATFE could easily get that information, assumedly, but we don't know either way.

[Lomak]

Right. I understand your point, I just disagree with it.

You're basically saying, "In order to pass a law to reduce crime, we must first see an increase in crime, then react to it."

I'm not interested in the "wait and see." I'd like to be proactive. I'd like to see the ridiculous gun culture and fascination with shiny powerful weapons burn in a fire.

Gun's should be respected, restricted, and regulated.

If you want a practical solution to reducing crime then increase the amount of jobs and decrease the amount of people living in poverty.

That is has been proven time and time again to be the main contributing factor in violent crimes involving firearms. Metropolitan area's with higher rates of unemployment have higher violent crimes. It's not a fluke, it's the exact same across the board. If your "goal" is to decrease crime (your only goal seems to be attacking my constitutional rights) then start creating more jobs in metropolitan area's, start educating people on firearms and firearm safety, start raising the standard of living and you WILL see crime drop by a significant portion.

Not that you care, people on your side of the fence are only interested in starting an argument and deflecting the blame and responsibility from People to Guns (inanimate objects). Then you wonder why people like me ignore most everything you say.

[GreatOak]

I think you misunderstood. I don't want to take your gun away from you. I want to make you earn it.

I've already earned it by not being a criminal or a danger to others and being in full possession of my second amendment right.

[Lomak]

I've already earned it by not being a criminal or a danger to others and being in full possession of my second amendment right.

Your guilty until proven innocent.

Irresponsible until proven responsible.

Incapable until proven capable.

(and im sure he thinks people like himself are the only ones "responsible" enough to decide for everyone else)

See as a firearm owner we are responsible not only for every other gun in existence but also the people who use those weapons.

At least, thats what people like him have convinced themselves of. It's a good thing people like him don't (and will never) have the power to make / enforce policy.

[Wells]

They achieve a 90-95% rate of success with gun tracing via the current system, without knowing why the 10-5% is not successfully traced, it's hard to judge whether a centrallized system would prove an advantage worth the cost (in $, that is, not gun rights which you care nothing for). ATFE could easily get that information, assumedly, but we don't know either way.

Source for that number?

[Tasttey]

At least, thats what people like him have convinced themselves of. It's a good thing people like him don't (and will never) have the power to make / enforce policy.

Sad part is that there are people like that that are in a position of power that sure as hell try.

[Svifnymr]

Source for that number?

Huffington Post article said 90%, ATFE always told me 95%, why, what rate have you found in the researches you have done to show that there is a need for such?

[Wells]

Huffington Post article said 90%, ATFE always told me 95%, why, what rate have you found in the researches you have done to show that there is a need for such?

I've seen a wide variety of numbers. The other issue is how much time and resources is needed to trace a gun.

[Svifnymr]

I've seen a wide variety of numbers. The other issue is how much time and resources is needed to trace a gun.

That's the article that mentioned 90%, yeah. It is wrong about the out-of-business records, of course, saying that all the records must be gone through page-by-page ignores the simple fact of the A&D book that lists it all in columns by date... It's like saying an encyclopedia is hard to find information in, because it's not computerized, while ignoring that it's alphabetical.

From the ATF agents that spoke of it, average trace is two days, quicker for the out-of-business dealers. Where it takes longer is when it has changed hands many times since. As I said above though, "without knowing why the 10-5% is not successfully traced, it's hard to judge whether a centrallized system would prove an advantage worth the cost". Without knowing the impact on the investigation, we have no way to know how it was hindered by any perceived delays.

Most of the time, traces are done as part of the prosecution, not the investigation. (As in, "we know who did it, now lets prove it".)

[Roxinius]

Your guilty until proven innocent.

Irresponsible until proven responsible.

Incapable until proven capable.

(and im sure he thinks people like himself are the only ones "responsible" enough to decide for everyone else)

See as a firearm owner we are responsible not only for every other gun in existence but also the people who use those weapons.

At least, thats what people like him have convinced themselves of. It's a good thing people like him don't (and will never) have the power to make / enforce policy.

this so sad because of how true it is there are millions of gun owners out there who will never use their gun for an crime but in the eyes of anyone anmti gun we are all cold blooded killers ready to snap

[Wells]

That's the article that mentioned 90%, yeah. It is wrong about the out-of-business records, of course, saying that all the records must be gone through page-by-page ignores the simple fact of the A&D book that lists it all in columns by date... It's like saying an encyclopedia is hard to find information in, because it's not computerized, while ignoring that it's alphabetical.

From the ATF agents that spoke of it, average trace is two days, quicker for the out-of-business dealers. Where it takes longer is when it has changed hands many times since. As I said above though, "without knowing why the 10-5% is not successfully traced, it's hard to judge whether a centrallized system would prove an advantage worth the cost". Without knowing the impact on the investigation, we have no way to know how it was hindered by any perceived delays.

Most of the time, traces are done as part of the prosecution, not the investigation. (As in, "we know who did it, now lets prove it".)

So let me ask you this. If law enforcement already has access to most of the data whats wrong with having the same data in an easier to access form an a more reliable manner?

And you're really hand waving on how much a pain in the ass it is not to have records computerized.

- - - Updated - - -

this so sad because of how true it is there are millions of gun owners out there who will never use their gun for an crime but in the eyes of anyone anmti gun we are all cold blooded killers ready to snap

You people never stop acting the victim do you?

Your gun rights haven't been more secure for decades. Its time to stop acting like everyone is so unfair to you.

[Roxinius]

So let me ask you this. If law enforcement already has access to most of the data whats wrong with having the same data in an easier to access form an a more reliable manner?

And you're really hand waving on how much a pain in the ass it is not to have records computerized.

- - - Updated - - -



You people never stop acting the victim do you?

Your gun rights haven't been more secure for decades. Its time to stop acting like everyone is so unfair to you.

getting a little defensive aren't you guess its true the truth hurts doesn't it wells

[TZucchini]

I've already earned it by not being a criminal or a danger to others and being in full possession of my second amendment right.

It wouldn't matter if you were a criminal or a danger to others. You could still easily acquire a firearm. That's the point.

[Roxinius]

It wouldn't matter if you were a criminal or a danger to others. You could still easily acquire a firearm. That's the point.

if you are a felon you cant easily acquire a gun from a store and hate to tell you no amount of registration will prevent back alley deals criminals will always find a way and it wont always be with guns

[Lomak]

You can easily acquire any means to cause others harm if that is your prerogative. What's your point?