Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

Machete-wielding Idaho man breaks through door before tenant shoots him.
NSFW.

Why didn't he just punch him?

Or live somewhere else?

Or use magic?

[lockedout]

Why didn't he just punch him?

Or live somewhere else?

Or use magic?

He should have just dialed 911 and grabbed his family and hid in the closet, surely the door would hold until the cops arrived...in Idaho.

[TITAN308]

and this has what to do with criminal firearm usage?

also, no shit? who exactly argued that gun control would save every person?

Because a line has to be drawn when something is going to effect 100% of law abiding citizens on the off chance it might stop something that occurs less than 1% of the time with criminals, who by the way are criminals and probably ignore laws and regulations anyhow (duh?). If we don't draw a line then people like you will and then you will keep moving it.

You had 10 years of heavy regulations and it proved to be useless. Why should we give you anymore? You couldn't do anything with 10 years.

Did you know you had 10 years of magazines size restrictions?

Did you know you had 10 years of rifle feature restrictions?

Did you know that the Clinton AWB even happened from 1994 to 2004?

Did you know this was on the federal level so it was nation wide?

Explain to me why we should be "open" to further regulations when you had 10 years that yielded zero results?

[Tinykong]

He should have just dialed 911 and grabbed his family and hid in the closet, surely the door would hold until the cops arrived...in Idaho.

It's his fault he lives in a house with a papier-mâché door.

[Eroginous]

Why didn't he just punch him?

Or live somewhere else?

Or use magic?

Nowai! He should have grabbed his kitchen knife or baseball bat and engaged the guy in close range combat! You know, the PRACTICAL method of preventing harm to one's self!

Hell, maybe grab a kitchen knife AND a baseball bat and dual wield!

[Mayhem]

Because a line has to be drawn when something is going to effect 100% of law abiding citizens on the off chance it might stop something that occurs less than 1% of the time with criminals, who by the way are criminals and probably ignore laws and regulations anyhow (duh?). If we don't draw a line then people like you will and then you will keep moving it.

You had 10 years of heavy regulations and it proved to be useless. Why should we give you anymore? You couldn't do anything with 10 years.

Did you know you had 10 years of magazines size restrictions?

Did you know you had 10 years of rifle feature restrictions?

Did you know that the Clinton AWB even happened from 1994 to 2004?

Did you know this was on the federal level so it was nation wide?

Explain to me why we should be "open" to further regulations when you had 10 years that yielded zero results?

people like me? do you actually read the stuff i´m writing or are you just making my position up like tinykong to be able to argue

did you know, i´m still not from the US

your argument basically is the 10 years did nothing (without showing any numbers) so any other regulation will be useless too, logic

- - - Updated - - -

It could maybe kinda sorta hopefully possibly prevent a few criminals from getting access to firearms.

so trying to save lifes is a bad thing, gotcha

[vetinari]

so trying to save lifes is a bad thing, gotcha

Taking anything to excess is a bad thing.

That includes trying to save lives.

[Mayhem]

Taking anything to excess is a bad thing.

That includes trying to save lives.

what excess are you talking about?

[PhaelixWW]

When we're talking about the cost-benefit analysis of an item, logic doesn't dictate anything.

If you think that, then you're grossly mistaken. Logic informs every step of a CBA.

No. The translation is "this is what my definition of 'net negative' entails. Here's the measuring stick. If yours is different, let me know."

Nope, sorry. You said "it's subjective", then you presented your opinion as fact. Herp derp, wrong.

You also failed to answer the question I asked. You seem to be doing that a lot lately: What restrictions aren't included in your qualifier?

No, I answered you. You just ignored the answer, which you seem to be doing a lot lately.

Re-read:

I figured that I didn't need to specify that the proposed gun control had to be effective.

Do you disagree that firearms make it easier to commit crime? Do you disagree that firearms make it easier to take a life?

Reading comprehension FTL. I didn't argue that they can't make crimes easier to commit. I argued that their absence definitely won't just eliminate most crimes. Most: a number more than half but less than all.

And I stressed this fact with the sentence that you neglected to address or quote here:

I didn't say all, I said most, and there's nothing to suggest otherwise.

Way to selectively post/respond. Disingenuous much?

The fact that you're still laughing at a typo, while refusing to provide evidence, is telling.

Hey, I just quoted your typo and called attention to it. You're the one who got super defensive about it and tried to handwave it. Then Mayhem decided he needed to champion your cause... for a typo. If you'd just said "yeah, it was a typo, I meant to say billion, sorry" I woulda just moved on.

I'm not the one who keeps bringing it back up.

And just for good measure, here's a post several weeks ago where I used the figure, without a typo.

Hey, that's great. /golfclap

I just don't want anyone to read the typo and assume that it's correct. I'll correct a three-orders-of-magnitude typo every time I see one. Not everyone reads all 2000 pages here.

No. It's not "really just a cost of criminals." It's directly attributed to the cost of firearm violence in America. If you want to make the assertion that all this crime/homicide would still be occurring, feel free to do so.

Aaaand the guns didn't cause the violence. So the cost should be attributed to the criminal act.

You want to know why it should be attributed to the violent impulse of the user instead of the gun itself? Because if you eliminate the gun, much of that violence would still happen. Whereas if you eliminated the violent impulses of the user, you'd be left only with a few accidents, dwarfed by the massive legal usage of firearms. Therefore, the limiting reagent in this equation is the violent impulse, not the firearm itself.

Since the major cause of the violence you're attempting to put a cost to is the criminal act, it's incredibly illogical to assign the entirety of the cost to the tool. If you want to be any kind of fair then you'd have to apportion out the cost by attempting to figure out the delta of the violence in regards to the presence of the firearm. But that's nearly impossible to do, so people cheap out and just do the unreasonable thing and attempt to place the whole cost on the tool.

It's garbage analysis.

do you have anything as a back up that it wont work or is this just nay saying for no reason at all?

Do you have anything to back up the idea that it will have any significant effect on crime?

ignoring your made up "statistics" from not representative numbers further ignoring trying to compare 31000+ traced firerams from california with 2900+ traced firearms from nevada

I don't think you really understand what you're reading in the data disclaimer. And then you're claiming that I made up the statistics even though I posted the ATF government document source? Wow. Pathetic.

And you do understand that ratios are comparable, even if the subset size is different? I'm not comparing number of traced guns, I'm comparing percentage of traced guns. Comparing the percentage is relevant, because it an even comparison. It's like comparing rates instead of comparing incident counts.

That should be basic knowledge. Perhaps I overestimated your intelligence?

anything else you want to make up?

Anything else you want to claim is made-up and further embarrass yourself due to the fact that it's supported by government data?

so the inversion of the argument would then be you think that regardless of having a firearm or not, criminals would commit the exact same crime

And when did I say that I'm arguing the inversion of the argument? Arguing against an extreme is not the same as arguing for the other extreme. You'd know that if you applied logic, but maybe you only grok "lologic"?

How does he know that offensive uses are greater than defensive uses? Because that's what the evidence tells us.

The "evidence" will tell you whatever you want to hear when you selectively choose the evidence to listen to.

You're still far off. The point still stands. The current state of firearm ownership is a net negative to society.

You're still far off. The point still stands. The current state of firearm ownership is a net positive to society.

See, I can do it, too!

And unfortunately for every smart responsible person, there's at least one idiot that defies all logic.
To prevent stupidity regulation needs to be in place.

Sig'd.

You can't prevent stupidity with regulation. You're only regulating the responsible. This is axiomatic: stupidity abounds and perseveres.

Why didn't he just punch him?

Or live somewhere else?

Or use magic?

Dude. You forgot flee, have a guard dog, use an alarm system, and wait patiently for the police to defend you.

[Mayhem]

Do you have anything to back up the idea that it will have any significant effect on crime?

the evidence at least hints it will, so do you have any evidence that it won´t have any significant effect on crime?

I don't think you really understand what you're reading in the data disclaimer. And then you're claiming that I made up the statistics even though I posted the ATF government document source? Wow. Pathetic.

And you do understand that ratios are comparable, even if the subset size is different? I'm not comparing number of traced guns, I'm comparing percentage of traced guns. Comparing the percentage is relevant, because it an even comparison. It's like comparing rates instead of comparing incident counts.

That should be basic knowledge. Perhaps I overestimated your intelligence?

am i right that it´s from two different states with vastly different laws regarding gun ownership?

so the laws that are in place don´t work, great, let´s look at the reasons why and adjust the laws, revert them or make better ones, but arguing these laws don´t work, so no laws will is another level of ignorance

Anything else you want to claim is made-up and further embarrass yourself due to the fact that it's supported by government data?

you haven´t shown any support for your argument at all

how about this source?

http://www.tracetheguns.org/#/states/CA/exports/

And when did I say that I'm arguing the inversion of the argument? Arguing against an extreme is not the same as arguing for the other extreme. You'd know that if you applied logic, but maybe you only grok "lologic"?

that´s what you were implying by writing this crap:

And the societal cost of firearms that you like to cling to is really a cost of criminals and their actions, not the tool they use. It's the same faulty logic behind the cost/benefit analysis method you like to use, too.

the bolded part means that firearm violence is irrelevant because criminals would do the exact same harm regardless of the tool they use, hence why i wrote baseless claim

[TZucchini]

If you think that, then you're grossly mistaken. Logic informs every step of a CBA.

Sure. But logic only gets you so far. It needs to supplemented with evidence. You've provided none.

Nope, sorry. You said "it's subjective", then you presented your opinion as fact. Herp derp, wrong.

Wow. You've ignored the question twice. I told you it was subjective, then asked what, in your subjective opinion, would qualify 'net negative'.

Aaaand the guns didn't cause the violence. So the cost should be attributed to the criminal act.

That's a wonderful opinion. Meanwhile, violent people will always exist in society. They're not going away. Human nature is not an item you can restrict and regulate. Assigning those numbers to 'violent people' tells us nothing. Assigning them to 'firearm violence' tells us a great deal about how the tool can affect society, economically. The economic costs come directly from firearm violence. Violence committed with firearms. It's a perfectly legitimate measurement of the current state of firearm ownership.

You're still far off. The point still stands. The current state of firearm ownership is a net positive to society.

Usually people back up those types of claim with evidence. You haven't done that. I have.

- - - Updated - - -

Why didn't he just punch him?

Or live somewhere else?

Or use magic?

Honestly, the landlord should be arrested. Those doors are clearly not up to code. Good on the tenant for using the firearm correctly, and especially for recording it, so there's no doubt as to legality.

- - - Updated - - -

He should have just dialed 911 and grabbed his family and hid in the closet, surely the door would hold until the cops arrived...in Idaho.

Why are you ignoring the questions I've asked you to reconcile?

[vetinari]

That's a wonderful opinion. Meanwhile, violent people will always exist in society. They're not going away. Human nature is not an item you can restrict and regulate. Assigning those numbers to 'violent people' tells us nothing. Assigning them to 'firearm violence' tells us a great deal about how the tool can affect society, economically. The economic costs come directly from firearm violence. Violence committed with firearms. It's a perfectly legitimate measurement of the current state of firearm ownership.

"Meanwhile, violent people will always exist in society. They're not going away. Human nature is not an item you can restrict and regulate."

So, if those violent people will always exist, wouldn't it make sense to promote civilian gun ownership, so that they can protect themselves from those violent people?

Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?

[Mayhem]

"Meanwhile, violent people will always exist in society. They're not going away. Human nature is not an item you can restrict and regulate."

So, if those violent people will always exist, wouldn't it make sense to promote civilian gun ownership, so that they can protect themselves from those violent people?

because violent people are always criminal people, you´re basically arguing if it wouldn´t make sense to arm violent people to protect yourself from violent people, yeah sure that makes sense

[Rukentuts]

If you think that, then you're grossly mistaken. Logic informs every step of a CBA.



Nope, sorry. You said "it's subjective", then you presented your opinion as fact. Herp derp, wrong.



No, I answered you. You just ignored the answer, which you seem to be doing a lot lately.

Re-read:




Reading comprehension FTL. I didn't argue that they can't make crimes easier to commit. I argued that their absence definitely won't just eliminate most crimes. Most: a number more than half but less than all.

And I stressed this fact with the sentence that you neglected to address or quote here:

Way to selectively post/respond. Disingenuous much?



Hey, I just quoted your typo and called attention to it. You're the one who got super defensive about it and tried to handwave it. Then Mayhem decided he needed to champion your cause... for a typo. If you'd just said "yeah, it was a typo, I meant to say billion, sorry" I woulda just moved on.

I'm not the one who keeps bringing it back up.



Hey, that's great. /golfclap

I just don't want anyone to read the typo and assume that it's correct. I'll correct a three-orders-of-magnitude typo every time I see one. Not everyone reads all 2000 pages here.



Aaaand the guns didn't cause the violence. So the cost should be attributed to the criminal act.

You want to know why it should be attributed to the violent impulse of the user instead of the gun itself? Because if you eliminate the gun, much of that violence would still happen. Whereas if you eliminated the violent impulses of the user, you'd be left only with a few accidents, dwarfed by the massive legal usage of firearms. Therefore, the limiting reagent in this equation is the violent impulse, not the firearm itself.

Since the major cause of the violence you're attempting to put a cost to is the criminal act, it's incredibly illogical to assign the entirety of the cost to the tool. If you want to be any kind of fair then you'd have to apportion out the cost by attempting to figure out the delta of the violence in regards to the presence of the firearm. But that's nearly impossible to do, so people cheap out and just do the unreasonable thing and attempt to place the whole cost on the tool.

It's garbage analysis.



Do you have anything to back up the idea that it will have any significant effect on crime?



I don't think you really understand what you're reading in the data disclaimer. And then you're claiming that I made up the statistics even though I posted the ATF government document source? Wow. Pathetic.

And you do understand that ratios are comparable, even if the subset size is different? I'm not comparing number of traced guns, I'm comparing percentage of traced guns. Comparing the percentage is relevant, because it an even comparison. It's like comparing rates instead of comparing incident counts.

That should be basic knowledge. Perhaps I overestimated your intelligence?



Anything else you want to claim is made-up and further embarrass yourself due to the fact that it's supported by government data?



And when did I say that I'm arguing the inversion of the argument? Arguing against an extreme is not the same as arguing for the other extreme. You'd know that if you applied logic, but maybe you only grok "lologic"?



The "evidence" will tell you whatever you want to hear when you selectively choose the evidence to listen to.



You're still far off. The point still stands. The current state of firearm ownership is a net positive to society.

See, I can do it, too!



Sig'd.

You can't prevent stupidity with regulation. You're only regulating the responsible. This is axiomatic: stupidity abounds and perseveres.



Dude. You forgot flee, have a guard dog, use an alarm system, and wait patiently for the police to defend you.

You calling others ignorant while being so delliberately immensely so that you still can't counter 9/11's data?

[Ghostpanther]

because violent people are always criminal people, you´re basically arguing if it wouldn´t make sense to arm violent people to protect yourself from violent people, yeah sure that makes sense

So you think passing a law not allowing private ownership of guns will stop the criminals from getting them anyway? Do you think the one who shot the 2 cops in NYC, which has some pretty strict gun laws, was obeying the laws of that city? vetinari is basically saying since there will always be criminals who will be violent, then we need ways to defend ourselves. See how easily that is to understand when you look at it with non-bias glasses on?

[TZucchini]

So, if those violent people will always exist, wouldn't it make sense to promote civilian gun ownership, so that they can protect themselves from those violent people?

It would make sense to promote highly regulated civilian gun ownership. Permissive firearm laws are only making it easier for violent people to obtain firearms. Each year, hundreds of thousands of firearms are stolen from private residences. Where do you think those firearms are ending up?

[lockedout]

It would make sense to promote highly regulated civilian gun ownership. Permissive firearm laws are only making it easier for violent people to obtain firearms. Each year, hundreds of thousands of firearms are stolen from private residences. Where do you think those firearms are ending up?

What would " highly regulated" do to stop "hundreds of thousands of firearms are stolen from private residences"?

[Mayhem]

So you think passing a law not allowing private ownership of guns will stop the criminals from getting them anyway? Do you think the one who shot the 2 cops in NYC, which has some pretty strict gun laws, was obeying the laws of that city? vetinari is basically saying since there will always be criminals who will be violent, then we need ways to defend ourselves. See how easily that is to understand when you look at it with non-bias glasses on?

jesus christ can you at least once read what i´m writing? i´m not in favor of banning guns, get this in your head

great example you found yourself there, so the cops were unarmed i guess, because if they were armed they could´ve defended themselfes

- - - Updated - - -

What would " highly regulated" do to stop "hundreds of thousands of firearms are stolen from private residences"?

hmm how do we manage to hinder people from stealing stuff, i wonder i wonder

[lockedout]

hmm how do we manage to hinder people from stealing stuff, i wonder i wonder

Locks keep honest people honest.

[Deleted]

What would " highly regulated civilian gun ownership" do to stop "hundreds of thousands of firearms are stolen from private residences"?

Well let's see, maybe if you respected the firearm you would keep it better guarded, and not just keep it laying around like a garden tool or a kitchen knife like many americans do. I see nothing wrong with having a bit of liability in terms of gun ownership, as it is now you can pretty much just buy a handful of guns and hand them out to strangers (if you wanted to), or have them laying around just inviting thiefs to steal them, should you get robbed. Gun saves and a bit of responsiblity would go a long way to stopping thiefs from stealing your firearms.