Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Sedative]

The poll really should read "Do you support the banning of accessories for long guns."

REAL assault weapons are already banned under current law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi6gZU01yF8

[Xanjori]

You're allowed to curl into a ball and hope you don't die. I already pointed that out.

You can also fight back with any force you deem necessary. Maybe that would be expecting too much of some people, dont wanna lose hold of your McD's after all...

[Deleted]

People illegally obtaining weapons will happen with safe enforcement or without. With gun bans or without. There's too many ways to illegally obtain a weapon. The reason rules like this couldn't be enforced is that it would infringe on peoples right to privacy. Police or other would have to enter your home on a regular basis, and check into your personal life and property.

Of course there will always be illegally obtained firearms, but that doesn't mean that the problem isn't heavily influenced by the availability of firearms in the US.

[hakujinbakasama]

Please tell me what you cant do in self defence in the UK, because you can do anything other than brandish a weapon, at which point it just became assault.

The problem is that you can't even use a self defense weapon. Also, you're really boned with regards to justifying the force you use after the fact. Which was touched on by someone else. The ability to be prosecuted afterwards by the person who was originally the aggressor or attacked you is fucking retarded in my opinion.

To sort of go the George Carlin route for a second, this "pussification" that I (or anyone else) should only meet this mythical level percentage of force with equal or less force is fucking inane.

And I get it. This is where the vast disconnect between most Europeans and some Americans is. I'm not going to shoot someone trying to steal my tv if I happen to catch them running out the door with it. That being said, I have no qualms about shooting first and asking questions later if I'm woken up at 3am by someone having broken into my dwelling. I really don't have any desire to sit and wait to see what level of escalation they are willing to take things. I don't live in a fantasy land.

[Kasierith]

Maybe you should "explain" that as well. Last I saw you agreed with me that something shouldn't be punished because :1 person out of 100,000" had a bad effect. The same exact argument we people defending the right to bear arms is making, that every law abiding citizen shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few.

Since you have repeatedly ignored the following posts..... some drugs have been left on despite the 1 in 100,000 chance. Some have not been taken off regarding the 1 in 100,000 chance. The primary difference is the tradeoff: what do you get from it? If there's some variation on basal insulin, a product that is already available in other forms, and a new drug came out that had the same effects but with slightly better dosing parameters... it would be taken off despite having even minute risks. If it were, say, the new drug currently in clinical trials that might very well successfully treat the underlying problem in 66% of Huntington's disease patients, which does not have an equivalent now, than they would not take it off the market for a minute chance.

I also have to find myself, for the third time now, asking you this simple question that you have twice now refused to answer..... in what post have I advocated the repealing of the 2nd amendment and the outright banning of firearms?

[hakujinbakasama]

Of course there will always be illegally obtained firearms, but that doesn't mean that the problem isn't heavily influenced by the availability of firearms in the US.

I have a REALLY huge issue with that section. Could you define it please? I'm really tired of people using it with zero clarification as to what they are implying.

[Priestiality]

You can also fight back with any force you deem necessary. Maybe that would be expecting too much of some people, dont wanna lose hold of your McD's after all...

Not quite, the law clearly states "reasonable force", however, what is considered "reasonable force" is at the discretion of the courts, rather than the individual being attacked.

"Opinions differ on what constitutes reasonable force but, in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine what constitutes "reasonable force" because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what they believed about the circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force."

[Sedative]

Of course there will always be illegally obtained firearms, but that doesn't mean that the problem isn't heavily influenced by the availability of firearms in the US.

I have a REALLY huge issue with that section. Could you define it please? I'm really tired of people using it with zero clarification as to what they are implying.

This reminds me of a story my wife was telling me about one time. You see, she is from Nicaragua, and when she was young she thought the streets of America had real cash just lying around and she would be able to come here and just pick it up.

[Xanjori]

The problem is that you can't even use a self defense weapon. Also, you're really boned with regards to justifying the force you use after the fact. Which was touched on by someone else. The ability to be prosecuted afterwards by the person who was originally the aggressor or attacked you is fucking retarded in my opinion.

Source? If you have eye witnesses to back up that any force you used was in self-defence only you cant be touched by the police. You can break someones arms, if its proven to be in self-defence then the police dont care, they'll lock away the aggressor with his broken bones.

You can use a weapon if you are in fear of your life, so if someone comes at you with a knife and you grab the nearest thing and smack them over the head, thats fine too. In the case of Tony Martin, a farmer that used a shotgun on two intruders that broke into his home he got 3 years in prison for manslaughter and he didn't even have a shotgun licence.

"English law permits one person to kill another in self-defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force""

[Bytch]

550 rapes and 1,100 murders are prevented every DAY, just by showing a gun.
~~ Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime victims survey.


There are approximately two million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens.
~~ National Institute of Justice.

[ShaggySweetness]

Of course there will always be illegally obtained firearms, but that doesn't mean that the problem isn't heavily influenced by the availability of firearms in the US.

Actually it is. Crime rates with gun purchases and concealed carry increases made the crime rate go down, however in cities with lots of gun control laws, such as Chicago, violent crime has risen drastically.

[Phanuel]

Besides, if the 2A is really about civilians having access to firearms as a means to prevent tyrannical government, I have no idea how that translates to using firearms to defend yourself against civilians.
If that's the case then there should be safes and firearms provided by the government to fulfill those rights and a box of sealed ammunition that's checked quarterly to ensure it hasn't been used, or at least have it so like in the UK you can be spot checked at any time to make sure your firearms are in your safe etc.
Pretty sure that's how it is in Switzerland, allbeit different reasoning.

Switzerland isn't about protection from a tyrannical government, so lets not use that as an example here.

Your first point though is hysterical; "if the 2A is really about civilians having access to firearms as a means to prevent tyrannical government" with you so far...

"If that's the case then there should be safes and firearms provided by the government to fulfill those rights and a box of sealed ammunition that's checked quarterly to ensure it hasn't been used" ANNND you've lost me completely.

Please let me know how I'm supposed to resist the government with tools it provides me and can take away at will because it knows exactly what and where they are?

[Grizzly Willy]

550 rapes and 1,100 murders are prevented every DAY, just by showing a gun.
~~ Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime victims survey.


There are approximately two million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens.
~~ National Institute of Justice.

My only problem with that NIJ article, or at least the one I found, is that their data is from ~1994, and that the article is from 1997.

Also, I should point out this quote:

The NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs [Defensive Gun Uses] each year greatly exaggerates the true number

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

[Kasierith]

550 rapes and 1,100 murders are prevented every DAY, just by showing a gun.
~~ Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime victims survey.


There are approximately two million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens.
~~ National Institute of Justice.

Would you please mind linking the survey and area from which you drew these quotes? The original sources, that is.

[ugotownd]

Honestly. I don't think he's dumb or misleading. I sincerely believes what he's saying is the truth. He's on a national news network. I doubt they would let him go out with misleading information. CNN has neither been full left wing or right wing they are most part a neutral party. Someone advised him on that and much like some people dislike term AR-15 as an assault weapon.

People just have different points of views. It's not incorrect to say an AR-15 can fire a hundred bullets in under a minute. It may be be mis-leading to a say a Semi Automatic can kill a hundred people in under a minute but not a Fully Automatic one. Maybe that's what he was suggesting.

Fused were you seriously dropped on your head as a child. If you think CNN is neutral and Piers is saying the truth you just lost what very little bit of respect i had for you.

[Svifnymr]

the main thing i hear about is gun sales bypassing background checks or "cooling off periods". is there truth to this, or do they have to maintain local laws, or what?

There's 3 "types" of sellers at a gunshow;
1) licensed dealers, bound to all the same background check laws as if they sell in a store.
2) private individuals selling personal firearms, most states don't require you to do a background check when you sell a firearm you own, whether in your house or at a gunshow.
3) "private dealers" are folks that buy guns and resell them for profit. They are breaking the law by doing so, ATF knows who they are, if there are any still around. Around here, they were all shut down years ago.

The "gun show loophole" is mostly anti-gun types trying to make it seem like all of #2 is actually #3, while ignoring #1 being at the show at all. If they want to regulate private sales, the system would need to apply to any avenue of such, not just gun-shows.

Currently, there is no way for a private person to run a background check on a buyer, unless they want to "run it through a dealer" which is a voluntary process of the dealer (and would charge for it).

As part of a licensed dealer, it was always hilarious when the news would run a thing saying "there's no background checks at gunshows, you can just buy and walk!" and then the people would get mad at us when we explained that the news was wrong, and stupid, and they did have to wait. They'd still buy the gun, wait the wait, get the background check and grumble the entire time.

[Tinykong]

Please, by all means take me to court. Also, I see you are unfamiliar with the term sarcasm. Ie. I was being sarcastic when I said it was my first amendment right to call her unstable, after she used the first amendment to defend her threat of violence. So, you've got me, calling a single person unstable, versus her saying she would willfully cause harm or death to ANY lawyer. Which one of us will be going to jail first?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but occasionally DO make excellent satire.

Who said anything about going to jail?

I said you weren't protected by the first amendment, as you claimed. Thanks for playing.

[Kasierith]

Who said anything about going to jail?

I said you weren't protected by the first amendment, as you claimed. Thanks for playing.

So you don't see a connection between not being protected by the 1st amendment, and being vulnerable to legal action?

[ShaggySweetness]

Since you have repeatedly ignored the following posts..... some drugs have been left on despite the 1 in 100,000 chance. Some have not been taken off regarding the 1 in 100,000 chance. The primary difference is the tradeoff: what do you get from it? If there's some variation on basal insulin, a product that is already available in other forms, and a new drug came out that had the same effects but with slightly better dosing parameters... it would be taken off despite having even minute risks. If it were, say, the new drug currently in clinical trials that might very well successfully treat the underlying problem in 66% of Huntington's disease patients, which does not have an equivalent now, than they would not take it off the market for a minute chance.

I also have to find myself, for the third time now, asking you this simple question that you have twice now refused to answer..... in what post have I advocated the repealing of the 2nd amendment and the outright banning of firearms?

You may have not said it exact, but the way you carry yourself in arguments in implying that you are in favor of the gun ban. I didn't say the complete abolishment of the second amendment. I have posted earlier an excellent metaphor on how our gun rights have been making "compromises" for almost 100 years, and the time for compromise is over. It seems you are saying the compromise for these drugs is that as long as its not effecting a massive amount, that it shouldn't be taken off the market. Firearm related crimes are minimal compared to the owners of firearms in the country, which in the same comparsion should mean the majority of law abiding people owning them should not be punished of have their items taken off the market.

[Kasierith]

You may have not said it exact, but the way you carry yourself in arguments in implying that you are in favor of the gun ban. I didn't say the complete abolishment of the second amendment. I have posted earlier an excellent metaphor on how our gun rights have been making "compromises" for almost 100 years, and the time for compromise is over. It seems you are saying the compromise for these drugs is that as long as its not effecting a massive amount, that it shouldn't be taken off the market. Firearm related crimes are minimal compared to the owners of firearms in the country, which in the same comparsion should mean the majority of law abiding people owning them should not be punished of have their items taken off the market.

Yes, I have implied it so strongly... which is why I have stated repeatedly that I do not support repealing the 2nd amendment, and have never given any indication that I do so besides pointing out some of the horrendous faults in logic that some pro-gun advocates implement in their arguments. Faulty logic is faulty regardless of its ultimate objective.