Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

The average police man only has a regular handgun and sometimes a shotgun. They only bring out the "big" guns when they need to raid or have a shootout with gangs, which is also the reason they need them. Why does a civilian need a high powered high capacity rifle?

Most cops down here keep an AR15 in the car, because if a situation escalates, they may need longer distance accurate fire that their handgun doesn't deliver.

I would think non-police would have the same needs, if something should escalate beyond the capabilities of their handgun, they can choose to have a rifle handy.

[smelltheglove]

I would think non-police would have the same needs, if something should escalate beyond the capabilities of their handgun, they can choose to have a rifle handy.

imo rifles are fine. if we had to make a choice of whether to get rid of handguns or rifles i wouldnt hesitate to say handguns. but that isnt going to happen, and it really shouldnt imo. but handguns are far more dangerous societally, due to the ability to conceal them

[Eroginous]

2L soda bottles have a direct correletion with the increase in obesity. Limiting container size is the easiest fix to stop overconsumption without going through massive (and very costly) educational steps.
7 is just a limit, if the limit was 1000 the picture on the right would be a 1001 capable magazine.

I love it how people always forget WHY things like crime and obesity exist. Is education more expensive than banning bigger drink sizes? Sure, it's ALWAYS more expensive to give people the tools they need to make informed decisions. But that's why they are called people. Because they have the right to make an informed decision themselves.

When your government starts making decisions for you, then you're just a sheep who does what the government says. Ironically, limited magazine/soda size does nothing to stop people from obtaining the same amount of bullets/soda. I can't buy two 10 round magazines? Well then I'll buy three 7 round magazines. I can't buy a 2L coke? Well then I'll buy a 6 pack of 12 oz cans.

Do you understand the logical fallacy yet?

Fine, then, if you decide that "deadly" is an either/or thing and not a sliding scale, then you have to agree that a slingshot, a razor, or a fist is just as deadly as either a .22lr or a .223.

I intentionally stayed away from the sliding scale of how powerful different calibers are, because that's irrelevant. Many more people die in the US because of .22lr than because of .223, which has been established as a fact statistically. Therefore, talking about the stopping power of a particular caliber is irrelevant. Both a .22lr and an AR15 are deadly, no matter how you try to spin one as being more powerful than the other.

And all of this ignores AR15's that are in 22lr.

Not really a relevant point to the idea of whether or not a .22lr is a deadly weapon.

Are we ignoring the fact that many, if not most, AR-15 variants currently in production use the .223 cartridge?

---------- Post added 2013-02-26 at 12:42 PM ----------

The evil part of me wonders what would happen if some demented fool carried an English broadsword or a giant double bladed waraxe into a movie theater and started hacking people to death with it. Would we suddenly see a push to ban edged weapons too?

No, we aren't ignoring anything. It's well established and acknowledged that a .223 is more powerful than a .22lr. We simply aren't talking about that at the moment. Someone decided to call .22s 'toys,' completely neglecting to acknowledge the lethality of a .22. So the discussion then shifted to statistical facts regarding the leading cause of death amongst gun calibers, in which .22lr is the reigning champ.

Rightfully so, anyone who's actually used a .22lr would understand the danger it represents when used as a tool to harm someone else. It's a deadly weapon, just like any other firearm, and that's all I'm trying to establish here.

Now, regarding swords, I do believe it is already illegal to carry a fixed blade over a certain size (I'm thinking 6") unless it's being used for work or sport (like a machete or a hunting knife). I don't think it would be legal for someone to carry a longsword into a movie theater, regardless of their intention with it.

It's hypocritical to say you want to stop gun violence or figure our the source but be against programs that are designed to do just that.

It completely depends on the proposed programs. If we are proposing banning all guns of a certain type (or even a blanket gun ban), well you're getting into territory where it's arguable whether or not the proposed program will have any effect at all on stopping gun violence. But if the proposition is a study on where gun violence comes from, well than that's something that ANYONE can and should get behind, regardless of politics.

The problem is that without the NRA, we probably would have had our gun rights stripped away years ago. As irritating as their campaign can be, the NRA represents a necessary evil keeping our country from being seized by a tyrannical government (whether or not you think that's even a possibility at any point in the future). The founding fathers weren't wrong when they drafted the second amendment. They understood completely that a country without armed citizens was a country just waiting to be thrust into tyranny.

If our government completely disarmed it's people, what would stop it from making up whatever policy it wants to and enforcing it unilaterally? We've already seen them using drones within our border, what would stop them from using drone strikes? What would stop them from experimenting with other new technology on our own people? They already have a 'button' they can use to shut off the internet, they are already in control of the mass media, and these are already well established facts we can discuss without venturing into crazy conspiracy territory.

I understand I'm treading a fine line between 'hypothetical' and 'slippery slope fallacy,' but I'm just asking honest questions. What's stopping our government from doing despicable things in the future, if not armed citizens?

I'm all for programs which address the root causes of gun violence (increased mental health care, increased benefits for people unable to work, ect) , but I am not for programs that remove my capacity as a citizen to legally own and operate firearms. Those sorts of programs are just not reasonable, unless you're a person who doesn't understand the purpose behind having guns to begin with.

It really bothers me that the only time people are willing to address guns is when there's 'senseless violence' attached to them.

[FusedMass]

I just got an email from Demand a Plan. Thought I'd share.

Watch this Strategy Update and Call Congress Today

Your elected officials are making important decisions about gun violence prevention policies - and you can play a major role in fighting for laws that will save lives.

Enter your information to the right, and we'll connect you.





Tell your lawmakers that you are calling because we need a plan to end gun violence NOW. We can prevent future tragedies by passing common sense legislation that will:

Require criminal background checks for ALL gun sales, including private sales
Ban assault weapons, including high-capacity magazines
Make gun trafficking a federal crime

[Nadev]

Tell your lawmakers that you are calling because we need a plan to end gun violence NOW. We can prevent future tragedies by passing common sense legislation that will:

Require criminal background checks for ALL gun sales, including private sales
Ban assault weapons, including high-capacity magazines
Make gun trafficking a federal crime

I waved my wand; we're good now folks. Absolute feel-good bullshit.

Certainly the part about gun trafficking. lolFast and Furious.

[Wells]

Background checks are feel good bullshit?

[gr4vitas]

[Nadev]

Background checks are feel good bullshit?

That's about the only part that makes sense.

[Eroginous]

That's about the only part that makes sense.

It might make sense on paper, but then you realize that only licensed gun retailers have the ability to conduct the required background check. Two guys in a parking lot working to reach a deal regarding the legal trade of a firearm are not in a position to conduct such a background check.

There already exists laws on the books requiring these people to report the sale and transfer of a firearm to the ATF, and there are already laws outlining steep penalties for not doing so.

Do you know what it's called when you are in possession of a gun which is not registered in your name? A felony offense with the minimum penalty of prison time and/or a hefty fine.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the...possession.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0345.htm
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/d...ts/guncard.pdf

Background checks are feel good bullshit?

Yes, they are. Licensed dealers in all 50 states are already required by federal law to conduct back ground checks, even at gun shows. The term 'universal' implies that the people who have no means to do a background check are now required to do so, which is never going to pass as federal law. Additionally, it does not follow that a criminal who would commit a crime with a gun, would submit to a background check to legally purchase a firearm to begin with.

Hence, the idea that background checks would stop individuals from committing crimes, is a feel good bullshit idea at best.

[Wells]

Additionally, it does not follow that a person who would commit a crime with a gun, would submit to a background check to legally purchase a firearm to begin with.

http://dcist.com/2013/02/virginia_ba...s_stop_160.php

Over the last 20 years background checks in Virginia alone have stopped 16,000 felons from buying guns.

So no, you're wrong.

[Svifnymr]

http://dcist.com/2013/02/virginia_ba...s_stop_160.php

Over the last 20 years background checks in Virginia alone have stopped 16,000 felons from buying guns.

So no, you're wrong.

I wonder how many of them were prosecuted for the felony of lying on the form required to purchase a gun?

[GreatOak]

Background checks are feel good bullshit?

No, but Assault Weapon bans are. All evidence seems to support that notion.

[Eroginous]

http://dcist.com/2013/02/virginia_ba...s_stop_160.php

Over the last 20 years background checks in Virginia alone have stopped 16,000 felons from buying guns.

So no, you're wrong.

You forgot to put the word 'legally' at the end of that sentence. Just because a felon wasn't able to purchase a gun from Walmart or a gun shop, doesn't mean they weren't able to get one illegally. How do you propose to do a background check in those circumstances? Again, your theory depends on people who are willing to follow the law - which criminals aren't so willing to do. Also, how many people have legally purchased a gun after passing a background check, only to then use that gun in a crime?

Do you have statistics on that?

The point is that passing a law requiring universal background checks will effectively change nothing. Guy who wants to buy a gun illegally, will still obtain a gun illegally.

Oh, and btw. 16k over 20 years works out to about 800 per year. What does that say for the ~12k gun related deaths each year in our country? That's a 6% difference. So glad the other 94% of criminals are still getting their guns.

[Wells]

The point is that passing a law requiring universal background checks will effectively change nothing. Guy who wants to buy a gun illegally, will still obtain a gun illegally.

So we should only create laws criminals will follow?

[mrwingtipshoes]

http://dcist.com/2013/02/virginia_ba...s_stop_160.php

Over the last 20 years background checks in Virginia alone have stopped 16,000 felons from buying guns.

So no, you're wrong.

If nothing was done to follow up with arrests due to it then no, you are wrong, it didn't do anything. That same felon went and got a gun elsewhere.

This is the biggest problem with gun control, there is ZERO people enforcing the laws. If it wasn't for paper trail dealers wouldn't be running background checks, but since there is paper trail and an automated system they have to. Look at things like the requirement for police to arrest felons trying to buy guns, how many actually happen?

[Wells]

That same felon went and got a gun elsewhere.

citation required.

I thought background checks were already universal. Isn't that the argument?

[GreatOak]

At least here in Chicago, background checks do not stop gangbangers. They just go anywhere south of Garfield and west of Pulaski to get illegal guns. They (background checks) seem to do a good job of stopping crimes of passion as well as stopping mentally ill citizens from getting guns. They are also non-intrusive, easily accessible, and fast. I don't know why any responsible person would object to them. NICS has holes but they should be patched up and enforced, rather than scrapping the entire thing.

[Wells]

At least here in Chicago, background checks do not stop gangbangers. They just go anywhere south of Garfield and west of Pulaski to get illegal guns. They (background checks) seem to do a good job of stopping crimes of passion as well as stopping mentally ill citizens from getting guns. They are also non-intrusive, easily accessible, and fast. I don't know why any responsible person would object to them. NICS has holes but they should be patched up and enforced, rather than scrapping the entire thing.

A localized gun ban like that isn't ever going to be terribly effective.

[Lilly32]

A shooting at the university I attended tonight got me talking with my Dad and some of his friends. Luckily it was an isolated event and stemmed from an argument so wasnt some nutjob going psycho. But we talked about it anyways since a good friend of my dad is head of the campus police there. When they were growing up no one ever thought about shooting up a highschool around where they were all from. You know why? Cause it was out in the country and everyone drove to school in their trucks straight from hunting. They said pretty much every white male student had a shotgun or rifle in their truck or car. No one would be dumb enough to shoot up a school where half the students were armed. And they were right. Hell when I first started attending college I had my guns in my trunk cause it was 30 mins from my farm and I could easily hunt before or after class. Even carried my sidearm in my bookbag (H&K .40) I figured if anyone ever started a shooting I wasnt going to die like some sissy crying in a corner or under a stairwell. If someone wanted me dead they were going to work for it.

[Eroginous]

So we should only create laws criminals will follow?

No, we should only create laws that make sense. While our government sits here arguing about which legislation to pass, an assault weapons ban, background checks, high cap magazine ban, ect, there are real people out in the world who are suffering in the personal lives. Suffering from poverty, suffering from mental illness, and some of those people are backed into a corner where the only solution is to get a gun and commit a violent crime.

So instead of passing a law which will only continue to ignore those people, pass laws which address the reasons why people become criminals to begin with.