Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

There's only one reason that matters (and I'm not going to just call on the 2nd amendment for this one): self defense.

Face it. Crime happens. Crime happens more in urban environments. Removing guns from law-abiding citizens won't prevent criminals from getting guns - and even if it somehow did, it wouldn't eliminate crime. If you are attacked - mugged, burgled, raped, etc - by the time police were to arrive, even if they somehow headed for the scene the moment the crime started, chances are high that it'd be too late ('when seconds matter, they're only minutes away').

So what do you do? Take it? Okay, there's another crime committed. Defend yourself? Sure, it can work without a gun, but your odds are a lot lower.

So, if you take away guns from law-abiding citizens, hell, even if you could take away guns from the entire world, crime rate would increase, as criminals know the chances of (effective) resistance is incredibly low. Do something about the culture, fix what makes people choose to commit a crime, and gun crime (all crime, really) will fix itself. But until you get rid of the underlying causes of crime, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is better than not.

Criminals are affected by supply aswell. You take away the law abiding citizens guns and you take away a large portion of illegal gun supply, sure criminal enterprises will see more action, but the availability will certainly drop. Also how do you defend yourself with a gun if the criminal has a gun pointed at you? I don't assume most criminals call ahead and inform you that they are going to attack you...

My point is that while we can't stop all criminals from getting guns we can certainly stop some of them from getting them, and thus reduce the amount of situations where criminals with guns use them against law abiding citizens.

Also if everyone has a gun won't people just shoot you first and ask questions later, because they assume you will shoot them if they don't?

[PhaelixWW]

Criminals are affected by supply aswell. You take away the law abiding citizens guns and you take away a large portion of illegal gun supply...

There's not some magic proportion of legal to illegal firearms. If you stop allowing new legal firearms, that doesn't mean you're going to stop guns from being stolen. If you stop allowing new legal firearms, all you're going to do is increase the proportion of illegal to legal firearms.

Criminals will keep stealing firearms as long as there are firearms to steal.

Also how do you defend yourself with a gun if the criminal has a gun pointed at you? I don't assume most criminals call ahead and inform you that they are going to attack you...

A gun vs. a gun is much preferable to a gun vs. nothing. Furthermore, if the criminal knows you're armed, he's less likely to be there in the first place.

My point is that while we can't stop all criminals from getting guns we can certainly stop some of them from getting them, and thus reduce the amount of situations where criminals with guns use them against law abiding citizens.

Like I said: any situation in which you're reducing the number of criminal guns by reducing the number of legal guns, you're making the proportion favor the criminal, in which case you'll increase the amount of situations in which a criminal uses a gun against a law abiding citizen.

Also if everyone has a gun won't people just shoot you first and ask questions later, because they assume you will shoot them if they don't?

If criminals are of a mind to shoot first, then they'll do so regardless. And they're far more likely to go after soft targets rather than targets capable of firing back.

[Åmbulance]

A gun vs. a gun is much preferable to a gun vs. nothing. Furthermore, if the criminal knows you're armed, he's less likely to be there in the first place.

I'll leave this story right here.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...e37b67b32.html

[rhandric]

Criminals are affected by supply aswell. You take away the law abiding citizens guns and you take away a large portion of illegal gun supply, sure criminal enterprises will see more action, but the availability will certainly drop. Also how do you defend yourself with a gun if the criminal has a gun pointed at you? I don't assume most criminals call ahead and inform you that they are going to attack you...

My point is that while we can't stop all criminals from getting guns we can certainly stop some of them from getting them, and thus reduce the amount of situations where criminals with guns use them against law abiding citizens.

Also if everyone has a gun won't people just shoot you first and ask questions later, because they assume you will shoot them if they don't?

So you'd prefer an environment where some criminals have guns, but no law abiding citizens do. I'm sure you'll find your utopia somewhere, but I hope for your sake there are no criminals in that society.

And if you think that people having guns means that they'll shoot you first and ask questions later, well, I guess you assume everyone's a psychopath.

[Deleted]

There's not some magic proportion of legal to illegal firearms. If you stop allowing new legal firearms, that doesn't mean you're going to stop guns from being stolen. If you stop allowing new legal firearms, all you're going to do is increase the proportion of illegal to legal firearms.

Okay let me spell it out so you understand, you seem to be under the assumption that there is some fairytale place where criminals gets their firearms from and they are not affected by anything. Most illegal guns are guns that have been bought by law abiding citizens and then stolen by criminals, or sold off by not so law abiding citizens claiming they are law abiding citizens. Now if you reduce the amount of guns the law abiding citizens has then the amount of guns that the criminals can get their hand on will have to fall, as there are fewer guns to steal. Yes the proportion might shift towards the criminal having more guns than the law abiding citizen, but the overall amount of criminals having guns would be significantly lower aswell.

I'm not going to argue that gun vs gun or gun vs no-gun is better, because I know you will just link one or two articles that "prove" your point, despite it not really proving your point as there are no real statistics on the subject. But I will say that I much prefer no-gun vs no-gun situation over the gun vs no-gun and gun vs gun situations.

[TwoNineMarine]

I'm not going to argue that gun vs gun or gun vs no-gun is better, because I know you will just link one or two articles that "prove" your point, despite it not really proving your point as there are no real statistics on the subject. But I will say that I much prefer no-gun vs no-gun situation over the gun vs no-gun and gun vs gun situations.

Never going to happen. Taking the guns from law abiding citizens now may reduce the future ones available to be stolen, but that does not account for the ones that are already stolen or that are simply brought into the country illegally.

In the end it will leave you and me defenseless while the criminals are not. Even if a criminal comes into my house with a bat I would still prefer a gun over nothing or using a bat myself.

If you choose to leave your safety, and the safety of your family, up to your ninja skills, then by all means, but please do not attempt to take away or infringe my right to defend mine.

[PhaelixWW]

Okay let me spell it out so you understand, you seem to be under the assumption that there is some fairytale place where criminals gets their firearms from and they are not affected by anything. Most illegal guns are guns that have been bought by law abiding citizens and then stolen by criminals, or sold off by not so law abiding citizens claiming they are law abiding citizens. Now if you reduce the amount of guns the law abiding citizens has then the amount of guns that the criminals can get their hand on will have to fall, as there are fewer guns to steal. Yes the proportion might shift towards the criminal having more guns than the law abiding citizen, but the overall amount of criminals having guns would be significantly lower aswell.

There are already 300m firearms in the US. They will continue to be stolen as long as there are still firearms out there. You will never reduce the number of criminal guns by nearly the amount as you'll reduce the number of law-abiding guns, proportionally. Not even close. The number won't be significantly lower.

And there's already a black market for illegal firearms. All you'll do is bring more firearms into the country illegally.

[rhandric]

Okay let me spell it out so you understand, you seem to be under the assumption that there is some fairytale place where criminals gets their firearms from and they are not affected by anything. Most illegal guns are guns that have been bought by law abiding citizens and then stolen by criminals, or sold off by not so law abiding citizens claiming they are law abiding citizens. Now if you reduce the amount of guns the law abiding citizens has then the amount of guns that the criminals can get their hand on will have to fall, as there are fewer guns to steal. Yes the proportion might shift towards the criminal having more guns than the law abiding citizen, but the overall amount of criminals having guns would be significantly lower aswell.

I'm not going to argue that gun vs gun or gun vs no-gun is better, because I know you will just link one or two articles that "prove" your point, despite it not really proving your point as there are no real statistics on the subject. But I will say that I much prefer no-gun vs no-gun situation over the gun vs no-gun and gun vs gun situations.

So, again...let's say all guns were to magically disappear in the world. Do you *really* think crime (not gun crime, but crime) would go *down*? Or do you feel that, because it's not done with a gun, it's fine and dandy, even if crime rates go up?

[Payday]

I wonder how many gun enthusiasts wrote a letter to their congressman this morning demanding that they end their tirade and fund the government. Not distributing gun permits is a blatant violation of the second amendment. This cannot stand.

[Deleted]

So, again...let's say all guns were to magically disappear in the world. Do you *really* think crime (not gun crime, but crime) would go *down*? Or do you feel that, because it's not done with a gun, it's fine and dandy, even if crime rates go up?

Who knows.. But I do think it would reduce the amount of homocides in general.

- - - Updated - - -

There are already 300m firearms in the US. They will continue to be stolen as long as there are still firearms out there. You will never reduce the number of criminal guns by nearly the amount as you'll reduce the number of law-abiding guns, proportionally. Not even close. The number won't be significantly lower.

And there's already a black market for illegal firearms. All you'll do is bring more firearms into the country illegally.

I think never is a strong wording. It will take time no doubt, but I can't see why you couldn't reduce the frequency of criminals with firearms as long as you take it seriously (see Australia). Also the black market already exists, but it would be smaller as supply is reduced, thus preventing some criminals from getting guns.

[Laize]

I wonder how many gun enthusiasts wrote a letter to their congressman this morning demanding that they end their tirade and fund the government. Not distributing gun permits is a blatant violation of the second amendment. This cannot stand.

Gun permits are issued by the state. State governments are still running.

[Payday]

Gun permits are issued by the state. State governments are still running.

What about Federal Background checks for said permits?

[Lomak]

I dont know what you anti gun hipsters are still arguing for. You still have yet to provide 1 practical reason that citizens should be denied their rights to ownership. "some crazy person shot and killed innocent people" doesn't have any thing to do with the average citizen and his rights (99.9999% of them).

[vaeevictiss]

What about Federal Background checks for said permits?

NICS is an automated process.

[Wells]

NICS is an automated process.

Nothing is free.

[Eroginous]

Okay let me spell it out so you understand, you seem to be under the assumption that there is some fairytale place where criminals gets their firearms from and they are not affected by anything.

Can we tone down the personal criticism here a bit?

That said, there is no magical place where people are never going to be in danger of being attacked by another person. People, by their very nature, are irrational, impulsive, and even violent, especially when they feel threatened. Gun ownership is a necessary evil because it gets people's attention right away, having the power to defuse a confrontation (where it's possible to defuse), and/or neutralize a threat before that person(s) can inflict harm to others.

This idea that we can just disarm people and violent crimes will just stop happening, is total rubbish. Violent crime happens because some people tend to be violent. Violent gun crimes happen because some people tend to be violent with guns. Violent gun crimes don't happen just because guns exist.

Some violent crimes are stopped or even prevented because people used their firearms in a responsible fashion.

[Deleted]

^
So the US must be the safest place in the world?

[Eroginous]

^
So the US must be the safest place in the world?

'Safest place in the world' isn't really a useful statement. Place where you're most likely to get shot or killed while trying to commit an act of violence against other people?

Yes, that would be the US.

[Payday]

NICS is an automated process.

Every article that I have read on both conservative and liberal sites has said that gun permits are not being issued during the shutdown. As far as the NICS being automated, somebody still has to check on and maintain the "robots".

I'm not saying I'm 100% sure about this so go ahead and prove me wrong. I just thought it was a funny little tidbit.

[vaeevictiss]

Every article that I have read on both conservative and liberal sites has said that gun permits are not being issued during the shutdown. As far as the NICS being automated, somebody still has to check on and maintain the "robots".

I'm not saying I'm 100% sure about this, but go ahead and prove me wrong. I just thought it was a funny little tidbit.

I cannot say for sure on the gun permit thing, Here in VA we dont need a permit per say, unless you want a concealed handgun permit which is handled entirely at a county level. As far as NICS is concerned, it can really run indefinitely. Obviously like any computer database it needs maintenance but nothing that this shutdown will affect. It is instant as the name implies. Your name is not in there until you have something on your record.

I could essentially go buy a gun today and pass through all the same checks as i would if the govt was not shut down.

Now the NFA process will be held up...as if the current 9 month wait wasn't long enough.