Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

Mexico has a gun ban for civilians and yet is the most violent country in the world with rampant gun crime.

Ah, poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to that-country-where-guns-are-easier-to-get-than-cars. The american legal market doesn't just feed the illegal domestic market, but also the mexican one. And I'm not talking about that government initiative.

Justice without force is powerless.

True, true. However, the alternative is much worse. Because you're allowing anybody to have a gun : Both the just, and the unjust. The government may not always be the former, but democracy ensures it usually is. And I'd rather have them decide who gets the power to end one's life at a moment's notice, than giving it to everybody and trust every single person's judgement at every moment.

[Wildtree]

We are taught the French revolution in schools because people like to blame the rich for their problems, and they are easy to blame because they are easy targets. It's easier to blame someone else than look at ourselves in the mirror. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Just curious now. What country are you from?
We have a lot of history stuff to learn in school, in Germany. But everything we learn there is free of political judgement.
We learn the facts, the key figures and the environmental influences, but no such thing like class evaluation. I would consider this manipulation, and not education if otherwise.

---------- Post added 2012-12-26 at 11:05 AM ----------

Ah, poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to that-country-where-guns-are-easier-to-get-than-cars. The american legal market doesn't just feed the illegal domestic market, but also the mexican one. And I'm not talking about that government initiative.

Bring drugs, barter for weapons...
I don't want to know how many times this is more true than false.

[Venant]

I have recently had a discussion with somebody who was very pro-gun ownership, and that person made some good points. Many people believe that you can only guarantee that you are protected from the perpetual threat of an Orwellian police state is by being adequately armed. This person pointed out that the first thing Stalin did was to confiscate as many guns as he could from the populace, once this was achieved the government basically seized everyone's property. Some people believe that the government in the US is eventually going to do this, they feel that human nature is to seize as much power as you can whether you are a corporation or the government.

Of course, I pointed out that standing up to the Feds didn't work so well for the branch Davidians at Waco. I doubt that having an AR-15 is going to allow you to repel a SWAT team.

I don't think you can ever solve the gun debate because there is no middle ground for those who believe that their guns are all that protect them from absolute tyranny. Nowadays many people see the world through the lens of extreme entrenched beliefs.

[FusedMass]

The city of Los Angeles is holding its annual gun buyback event at two locations Wednesday in an event that was moved up several months in response to the deadly elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

LAPD officials are to be on hand to take back firearms at the L.A. Memorial Sports Arena and the Van Nuys Masonic Temple from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The guns can be turned in anonymously, with no questions asked, officials said.

The city is offering up to $100 in Ralphs gift cards for handguns, shotguns and rifles, and up to $200 in gift cards for assault weapons.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa created the gun buyback program in 2009. So far, it is credited with getting close to 8,000 firearms off the streets.

Last May, police collected 1,673 firearms, including 53 assault weapons, 791 handguns, 302 shotguns and one anti-tank rocket launcher.

Villaraigosa announced last week that the gun buyback, usually held in the spring, would be moved up to give Angelenos a chance to take "concrete action" after the Newtown shooting, in which a gunman killed 20 children and six adults before killing himself.

"Too often we wake up with another headline that reminds us we are too late," Villaraigosa said at a news conference last week.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ack-event.html

[tombstoner139]

I have recently had a discussion with somebody who was very pro-gun ownership, and that person made some good points. Many people believe that you can only guarantee that you are protected from the perpetual threat of an Orwellian police state is by being adequately armed. This person pointed out that the first thing Stalin did was to confiscate as many guns as he could from the populace, once this was achieved the government basically seized everyone's property. Some people believe that the government in the US is eventually going to do this, they feel that human nature is to seize as much power as you can whether you are a corporation or the government.

Of course, I pointed out that standing up to the Feds didn't work so well for the branch Davidians at Waco. I doubt that having an AR-15 is going to allow you to repel a SWAT team.

I don't think you can ever solve the gun debate because there is no middle ground for those who believe that their guns are all that protect them from absolute tyranny. Nowadays many people see the world through the lens of extreme entrenched beliefs.

I think historically humans have always viewed the world through extreme entrenched beliefs with periods of progressive development. It functions like a pendulum moving from side to side over the years. The last 150-250 years have seem extreme changes in technology that have had profound affects on society. i think
it has allowed the pendulum to swing faster. The US has been through a tremendous amount of change since WWII. civil rights movement for one, gay and lesbian marriage for another. its inevitable that all that change would force people to adopt more extreme conservative positions. Rights to weapons is another area of development. i can understand the argument that you don't "really" need weapons now a days. but its a short sighted, narrow view of life. and how important real power needs to be in the hands of the people. without real power our system will slip back into older forms of power structure. this is already happening.
The US federal government has gotten way to big for our own good and has a massive debt liability as a result. The term Czar has reentered political language.
transportation czar, the consumer safety czar, et. al. The term czar is clearly a title of nobility, one that the US government is forbidden from issuing but it does use the term czar to describe that broad rand of power granted to that individual.

Basically i aree with you that its is in human nature to grab as much power as posable. unfortunate its more likely for personal gain / money then for social issues

[SirRobin]

Apologies, at work, being a productive member of society and all will slow my responses.

Since PhaelixWW referenced one chart. I might as well post where he got it from and add another link as well.

1. A Guide to Mass Shootings in America Updated: Sat Dec. 15, 2012
2. Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States Posted on December 14, 2012

FusedMass posted again (erroneously) that assault weapons were used in the majority of mass killings. I responded by pointing out (for the fourth time) that handguns were far more commonly used in mass killings than assault weapons. You chimed in with the fact that those handguns were mostly semi-automatic, too, and ain't that "inconvenient".

My problem is that you took the argument of the relative danger of handgun vs. assault weapon, and tried to turn it into a semi-automatic vs. non-semi-automatic debate, while also trying to claim that this fact was "inconvenient" to someone, like they were arguing against you on that subject. There was no inconvenience, because nobody was arguing against you. The fact that semi-automatics are more dangerous than non-semi-automatics is a given, just as automatics are more dangerous than semi-automatics.

But just because semi-automatics are relatively more dangerous than non-semi-automatics is not a reason in-and-of-itself to ban semi-automatics, which is what you seem to be going after. Hell, polling indicates that public interest in a potential handgun ban was at an all-time low, so going after semi-automatic handguns as well as assault weapons seems like a stretch that very few politicians would try to make.

Actually the following is what I "chimed in" to.

And now I'm starting to think that you're willfully ignoring the point.

For the fourth time: handguns are two and a half times more likely to be used in a mass killing than an assault weapon.

But, but Phaelix, its the big black scary guns that are the most dangerous, our dear leader told us so, so we have to do what he says.

While you are correct that "handguns" are used most frequently in mass shootings. You didn't mention what kinds of handguns were being used. Seran decided to get a little snarky, is that the right word(?), with his reply so I merely returned the favor by pointing out the kinds of handguns that were favored.

I don't need to change the topic. As shown previously, the thread is about gun control. The inconvenience is that focusing on assault weapons versus handguns, obscures the greater divide involving semiautomatics. Nor, if you'll recall, am I claiming that an actual ban is required. Updating and improving the FAWB is an option but more comprehensive reform would be preferable.

Polling puts it at 26% for a handgun ban and 43% for an assault weapon ban as of late last year. Recent events and media and political focus could potentially account for a 7% jump in the polling for assault weapons, but there's no way in hell you'll get me to believe that it's likely to account for a doubling of the poll numbers in favor of a handgun ban, even if it's "just" semi-automatic handguns. Especially when you consider, just in the microcosm of this thread, the tendency to scoff off the danger represented by the handguns possessed by the recent killers in favor of the more flashy assault weapons.

As we've seen, it is the legal gun owners' own behavior that keeps bringing gun control back into the spotlight. I don't need to convince you. Gun owners themselves are doing the convincing. Where or when we'll reach the "tipping point," so to speak, is of course an unknown.

See, now you're just getting ridiculous again. Trying to blame each and every gun owner for the bat-shit crazy minority. Heck, you can't even really just call it a minority; you'd have to call it a statistical aberration. If you look at the behavior of legal gun owners as a whole, then it paints a different picture, since 99.99% of them aren't going around killing people or letting their guns be taken to kill people.

But you'd rather point a finger at the crazies and tell people that their behavior is the norm.

It's like trying to blame every Caucasian for the KKK. Or like trying to blame every African-American or Latino for inner-city gang violence. Or like trying to blame all Catholics for the priests that molest little boys.

And then telling them that they'd better police themselves... or the rest of us will do it for them.

This isn't a once in a lifetime sort of event. This isn't even once a generation. Its, almost, at the least an annual event. Well except for this last year of course. Seven mass shootings in 2012? Not a good year. Look at who is committing the shootings or where they are getting their weapons from. Yep, far to often, its legal gun owners.

Blame? Interesting that you brought up priests actually. How about calling on the Catholic Church for reform due to how costly the behavior of the "statistical aberration" of molesting priests was? Didn't we do that? Resigning cardinals, or was it bishops, changes in internal policies, etc, etc... Like with legal gun owners, some priests' behavior caused damage far out of proportion with their relative number.

People start getting a bit more proactive when the "statistically aberrant" behavior is being committed on children.

Actually, I should say it's more likely even between assault weapons and non-semi-automatics. I was counting all shotgun mass shootings as non-semi-automatic when a few of them were probably semi-automatic. The information comes from the same page that was linked earlier (and one that you should know, since you keep referring to the data in the graph right above the one I'm talking about):

So "more mass killings from non-semi-automatic firearms" was not actually talking about non-semi-automatic firearms? Considering that assault weapons also tend to be semiautomatics, plus some shotguns may have been semiautomatics, I'm not sure how you would think that that chart supports your initial claim in any way.

You're talking about the legality of the firearm's obtaining like it's some sort of holy grail (no pun intended). Someone is innocent until proven guilty. Likewise, someone is a law-abiding citizen until they're not. In the case of crazy people, the background check can't magically detect their mental state, it requires that someone in the past have submitted them for psychiatric help.

How are gun owners supposed to police this when the police can't even arrest someone for not breaking the law... yet? The sad truth is that occasionally (less than 0.01% of the time), things slip through the cracks with disastrous consequences.

Which is why I bring up "try policing yourselves or something." As you brought up with the priests, gun control doesn't have to be federally imposed from the "outside." You have gun associations out the wazoo. You also have social media networking. Don't just use it to protest what we can all see would make it harder for wackos to commit these tragedies. Use them to keep in touch. Intervention isn't just the name of a reality tv show. No it doesn't include the word "armed" either.

Again, these wackos are not buying these guns in back alleys. They buy them at gun shops and gun shows. So not only does the government find out who has guns through registration, you do to. I hear all this stuff about safety classes and awareness. Well then, use that awareness for more than how Obama wants to take your guns away today. Use it for, "you see that guy who picked up the bushmaster last week? Anyone know if he is an association member? Anyone invite him to one of our local ranges? Anyone got his phone?"

Here is a really nice one. "Anyone talk to the new guy yet? He looks wound way to tight. He just bought another glock and a couple of high capacity mags. Should we be worried about this?" There is always a tipping point. Police yourselves so others don't end up feeling forced too. And no, I'm not talking about a police state. I am talking about the federal government banning, worded in a way that the Supreme Court approves of of course, what doesn't actually need to be banned.

[xylophone]

The city of Los Angeles is holding its annual gun buyback event at two locations Wednesday in an event that was moved up several months in response to the deadly elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

LAPD officials are to be on hand to take back firearms at the L.A. Memorial Sports Arena and the Van Nuys Masonic Temple from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The guns can be turned in anonymously, with no questions asked, officials said.

The city is offering up to $100 in Ralphs gift cards for handguns, shotguns and rifles, and up to $200 in gift cards for assault weapons.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa created the gun buyback program in 2009. So far, it is credited with getting close to 8,000 firearms off the streets.

Last May, police collected 1,673 firearms, including 53 assault weapons, 791 handguns, 302 shotguns and one anti-tank rocket launcher.

Villaraigosa announced last week that the gun buyback, usually held in the spring, would be moved up to give Angelenos a chance to take "concrete action" after the Newtown shooting, in which a gunman killed 20 children and six adults before killing himself.

"Too often we wake up with another headline that reminds us we are too late," Villaraigosa said at a news conference last week.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ack-event.html

I wonder how many soccer moms are going to turn in their husbands ~$700 handguns for a $100 gift card.

[Trunksee]

This is what i dont get, people who are for the restrictions keep ignoring people when they post the reason we have the second ammendment in the first place. We kept our guns to protect ourselves from ouselves if thr government ever over stepped its.bounds in our lives. Now i know it was lost in waco but that was a small group. If the government ever really over stepped its bounds to enter our lives we were given an ammendment to protect our freedom. You start banning military or any style arms the american people are at a great disadvantage. I would like to hear from americans who are anti gun explain to me where their logic is on this.

[SirRobin]

Again, you demonstrate your misinformation. the shooter was about to be institutionalized by his mother, however, she was having a difficult time as the CT laws dont allow for involuntary commitment. The fact that he WAS a KNOWN danger was out there. Sorry if you missed it. The 'core issue' you allude to IS easy, when the legislators find the will to address it instead of grandstanding.

Is anyone not bothered by the legal gun owner trying to have her twenty year old committed, but having no issues with keeping semiautomatic firearms around him? So this "known danger" having a legal gun owners' firearms at hand, didn't ring any alarm bells either? Were these guns at least locked up? Where was the key?

[Trunksee]

Is anyone not bothered by the legal gun owner trying to have her twenty year old committed, but having no issues with keeping semiautomatic firearms around him? So this "known danger" having a legal gun owners' firearms at hand, didn't ring any alarm bells either? Were these guns at least locked up? Where was the key?

It hasnt been reported i dont think, probably because it skews the facts. If they werent then it becomes a gun control issue if they were its a mental health issue. Yes this kid should have been committed and the mother tried, but he wqs over 18 and at that point he could only committ himself, the mother had almost no ability to. Why does it not bother you if he was able to be committed this would have never happened at all never mind on a lesser scale?

[SirRobin]

It hasnt been reported i dont think, probably because it skews the facts. If they werent then it becomes a gun control issue if they were its a mental health issue. Yes this kid should have been committed and the mother tried, but he wqs over 18 and at that point he could only committ himself, the mother had almost no ability to. Why does it not bother you if he was able to be committed this would have never happened at all never mind on a lesser scale?

Its still a gun control issue, even if they were secured, because they clearly weren't secured enough. Just as its still a mental health issue, because he was a wacko. Again, I've been committed before. That did not "fix" me by any means. Again, again, its not actually that hard to fool the shrinks, enough, to get released. Managing to get him committed could easily have zero impact on this tragedy's scale. Beyond delaying it temporarily of course. Could actually make it worse because he might feel even more betrayed, isolated, oppressed, and angry. Having the firearms sufficiently secured, however, would have had a major impact on this tragedy's scale.

[Daerio]

True, true. However, the alternative is much worse. Because you're allowing anybody to have a gun : Both the just, and the unjust. The government may not always be the former, but democracy ensures it usually is.

Your faith in the democratic system is... 'heartwarming', and entirely misplaced. You seem to have this idea that because we 'vote' on a 'choice' of politician that the system can't be corrupt. Well, I don't know how closely you've actually looked at the system we use - but the entire voting system is a sham the way I see it. Nothing really changes if you vote a democrat into office vs a republican. The 2 party system is a joke at it's core. We don't vote to 'change' things, you vote to keep things the same.

It's sensationalized in the media, like "Obamacare made such a big difference!" or "It's throwing us into massive debt!" - this is just a big popularity contest that goes on over and over to keep people from seeing that nothing actually changes no matter who they vote for. It looks like it's working pretty well on you. I don't really know anyone in the US who thinks that if Obama or Bush or Clinton or whoever gets elected, stuff will actually start changing in a meaningful way.

Lobbyists are there year-round lining pockets. They don't get elected. They're the driving force behind bills, laws, 'change.' There's no system in place to hold politicians to their campaign promises. The worst thing that could happen is we vote in somebody else next time that does the exact same thing. We're given 2 'choices' that are exactly the same, over and over. (but people are lead to believe they're different) In this electronic age we live in, we could have a system where the entire population votes on every new law, from their home, and eliminate 'politician' as a career entirely. That's not ridiculous or impossible. Educating the public better, having laws that the majority actually believe in, and not paying people billions of dollars 'to get elected.'

Politicians do not READ laws. Politicians do not WRITE laws. Politicians do not VOTE on laws. They are TOLD what to do by somebody else who actually knows what's going on - people who are not 'voted' on in any way.

“We need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years.” - Ben Franklin (even democracy)

[Ylera]

as a brit, it entertains me how america, supposedly the most advanced nation in the world, can be so irrational when it comes to the subject of guns. you guys are so lost in your false pride it's unreal. guns are a tool of warfare and death. they have no other purpose, they are not needed. hunting is not a valid excuse, it's a niche pastime that should be forgone for the safety of the rest.

[GreatOak]

Ah, poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to that-country-where-guns-are-easier-to-get-than-cars. The american legal market doesn't just feed the illegal domestic market, but also the mexican one. And I'm not talking about that government initiative.

True, true. However, the alternative is much worse. Because you're allowing anybody to have a gun : Both the just, and the unjust. The government may not always be the former, but democracy ensures it usually is. And I'd rather have them decide who gets the power to end one's life at a moment's notice, than giving it to everybody and trust every single person's judgement at every moment.

Russia? In any event, Mexico goes to show you that laws don't stop criminals. Anything short of confiscation won't get guns out of America. There are 300 million here already

---------- Post added 2012-12-26 at 09:23 PM ----------

as a brit, it entertains me how america, supposedly the most advanced nation in the world, can be so irrational when it comes to the subject of guns. you guys are so lost in your false pride it's unreal. guns are a tool of warfare and death. they have no other purpose, they are not needed. hunting is not a valid excuse, it's a niche pastime that should be forgone for the safety of the rest.

Second Amendment is not about hunting. It's funny how a Brit can be so uneducated about his own history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

There you go

[SirRobin]

as a brit, it entertains me how america, supposedly the most advanced nation in the world, can be so irrational when it comes to the subject of guns. you guys are so lost in your false pride it's unreal. guns are a tool of warfare and death. they have no other purpose, they are not needed. hunting is not a valid excuse, it's a niche pastime that should be forgone for the safety of the rest.

I can see why you would think that. In fact I could see how just about anyone could think that. I just don't agree. There is more to guns than just warfare and death. They are a symbol of our revolution against oppression, yours in fact.

They are also a sign of independence and self-sufficiency. Eating what you've killed after a proper hunt, not some of the jokes that pass for them nowadays, can touch a part of your soul that is often forgotten in our distracting world.

They can even be a guardian. Indicating to not only yourself, but to everyone else as well, that you will protect what is yours. Yes people take it to far at times and some rights should be earned instead of entitled.

But hardly just tools of death and warfare.

[Ylera]

i dont buy the protection against the oppression of the state thing for one minute. maybe in less developed nations sure, but in modern democratic countries, where the different sections of the state are separate and independent of each other, such potential tyranny is made impossible (not to mention the impact of social media). is the history and the internal workings of america so antagonistic you live in constant fear of being oppressed?

[Deleted]

You seem to have this idea that because we 'vote' on a 'choice' of politician that the system can't be corrupt.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I should have been more clear. The system does not matter in the slightest bit. What matters is the good will of the people in charge. The ideals of democracy, as taught in schools to the masses, ensure that these politicians are driven to think the way they need to in order to lead the people the way we believe is best, and avoid the tyrants that got the job too easily back in ye olde monarchie days.
It's not a good system because you vote. It's a good system because the people at the top think (know ?) that they have to take that vote into account. And even then; you might believe that you're not being listened to, that you only have an illusion of choice. Truth is, politicans try to appeal to the broadest electorate, and you are on the fringe. You can't satisfy everyone, but democracy aims to sastify the most. Anything else would be the tyranny of a minority.

Politicians do not READ laws. Politicians do not WRITE laws. Politicians do not VOTE on laws. They are TOLD what to do by somebody else who actually knows what's going on - people who are not 'voted' on in any way.

Yeah you're a bit too disenchanted with governments. I suggest you go live as a luddite in Guatemala, they have good lands and the government will never bother you (seriously, look it up).

[Svifnymr]

i dont buy the protection against the oppression of the state thing for one minute. maybe in less developed nations sure, but in modern democratic countries, where the different sections of the state are separate and independent of each other, such potential tyranny is made impossible (not to mention the impact of social media). is the history and the internal workings of america so antagonistic you live in constant fear of being oppressed?

Almost any action in the world is risk vs reward. The idea of a revolution if the government goes against the will of the people would be that it is too costly to impose the tyranny upon them, in theory. I mean, sure you're not using your glock to charge a tank, but if society cannot function in an orderly manner, the cost would be too high.

[Daerio]

You seem to have misunderstood me. I should have been more clear. The system does not matter in the slightest bit. What matters is the good will of the people in charge. The ideals of democracy, as taught in schools to the masses, ensure that these politicians are driven to think the way they need to in order to lead the people the way we believe is best, and avoid the tyrants that got the job too easily back in ye olde monarchie days.
It's not a good system because you vote. It's a good system because the people at the top think (know ?) that they have to take that vote into account.

You are living in a dream world, sir.

If the world was perfect this might be the case. The world, and our government, is not perfect - I don't know anybody who would even suggest such a thing. The answer isn't always "run away somewhere else" either.

[Svifnymr]

So... whats the difference?

Not an assault rifle:


An assault rifle:


Not an Assault Rifle:


An assault rifle:


Because Feinstein and her compatriots, who have been trying to pass an assault weapons ban since before the 94-04 ban expired, know nothing about guns and base their decision purely on cosmetics.