Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[rhandric]

(3) Investment in policing. This thread is filled with people saying "I need guns because the cops are 2 hours away". Well that's a shit reason to have a gun. Let's work on that.

Police aren't legally liable for your safety, as ruled by the Supreme Court.

[cubby]

You mean with an increased rate of other, non-gun-related violent crimes.

Of course there would be an increased rate of other, non-gun related deaths. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.

But when was the last time you saw an innocent four-year-old bystander killed by a random knifing?

[smelltheglove]

Cool hypothetical scare tactics bro.

What if North Korea invades Red Dawn style? Are you going to hug it out with them?

please tell me this isnt a serious argument, lol

[rhandric]

Of course there would be an increased rate of other, non-gun related deaths. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.

But when was the last time you saw an innocent four-year-old bystander killed by a random knifing?

So you're saying the potential safety of an innocent bystander is worth increased non-related gun deaths? If, hypothetically, there is, say, 10 deaths per 10000 split evenly between both gun and non-gun deaths pre-ban, and 12 deaths per 10000 people post gun-ban (and assume the ban completely removed guns from the hands of citizens) you'd be fine, just because a gun was no longer involved? Or if deaths decreased to say, 8 per 10000, but rapes increased by 20 per 10000, would that be fine, because deaths decreased?

[cubby]

There is really only two things you can do about that. Both would have to happen.

(1) A VERY generous gun buyback program. Turn in your gun, get cash. And have an amnesty for any unlicensed firearm. Just get them off the street and pay whatever it takes to do it.

(2) The penalty for having a gun after a certain date would be extremely stiff. Extremely. Years in prison stiff, and if not that a huge fine. There would have to be some kind of prosecutorial discretion, so some old farmer who doesn't know about the changes of laws doesn't go to jail, but knowingly keeping a gun after the ban date should be an extremely serious felony.

(3) Investment in policing. This thread is filled with people saying "I need guns because the cops are 2 hours away". Well that's a shit reason to have a gun. Let's work on that.

Guns have been banned elsewhere, and it worked in these places. There is nothing so different about us that. Most crimes are committed by someone the victim knows, so perhaps something could be organized so the local police department is on alert for people at risk.

Most of this, definitely. Except the possession thing - make it a fine, along with confiscating possessions of the person who is in possession of the firearm. More money for government while still taking illegal guns off the street (just a suggestion).

However, as an ancillary policy necessity, we'd have to eliminate most prison time for the majority of drug related crimes. Not trying to derail the discussion, but we already have too many people in jail as a society.

[steale]

please tell me this isnt a serious argument, lol

Not at all. It was a hypothetical ridiculous situation to match "er ma gerd, everyone is printing off Uzi's and rioting in the streets because nobody heeded the wisdoms of Skroesec on that video game website ten years ago".

[cubby]

So you're saying the potential safety of an innocent bystander is worth increased non-related gun deaths? If, hypothetically, there is, say, 10 deaths per 10000 split evenly between both gun and non-gun deaths pre-ban, and 12 deaths per 10000 people post gun-ban (and assume the ban completely removed guns from the hands of citizens) you'd be fine, just because a gun was no longer involved?

So your entire hypothesis is based on an increase in violence when guns are removed? Really?

I'm sorry, I thought we were having a serious conversation.

[rhandric]

So your entire hypothesis is based on an increase in violence when guns are removed? Really? I'm sorry, I though we were having a serious conversation.

Go read the edit, somehow I lost part of my post the first time.

[Svifnymr]

My problem is that this is not what gun ownership is. I have made the analogy to child like love of superheroes being the same as people's attachment to guns on purpose. I think it occupies the same emotional space and that is at issue here. It's far beyond guns as a tool. it's guns as a fetished object. As something to adore, to collect. Guns become an idea, like super heroes are an idea. People collect guns the way they collect Super hero action figures or comic books or magic the gathering cards or a hundred different things. My touching it and holding it, whatever power there is in the gun (or any of those items) seems more real.

The same can be said of cars. There are perfectly adequate utilitarian vehicles and then there are fancier cars. Some folks collect cars, some collect guns. Some folks have perfectly utilitarian firearms, some have fancier guns. Or watches, some folks get expensive watches with fancy engraving or xyz movement.

Where you and I differ is that you seem to link the appreciation of merits aside from a gun as a tool, with the glorification of that firearm as somehow not a tool, but a murder weapon. You note different folks waving their AK's around, and it's a good example I think, of the difference. For them the AK47 is simply a sign of power, it's a weapon to show what they can do. That is vastly different from someone appreciating the mechanism of a firearm, or the artistry and metalwork of some. There are a lot of facets to such things.

[cubby]

So you're saying the potential safety of an innocent bystander is worth increased non-related gun deaths? If, hypothetically, there is, say, 10 deaths per 10000 split evenly between both gun and non-gun deaths pre-ban, and 12 deaths per 10000 people post gun-ban (and assume the ban completely removed guns from the hands of citizens) you'd be fine, just because a gun was no longer involved? Or if deaths decreased to say, 8 per 10000, but rapes increased by 20 per 10000, would that be fine, because deaths decreased?

Roger, seems to make more sense, at least as a hypothetical.

That being said, I reject the example. I could just as easily put up hypotherical numbers and ask you a reverse question. Both would have no factual basis for discussion. What we KNOW FOR SURE is that removing all personal firearms would reduce gun related deaths. Period. If other crimes do go up (and, for the record, I have to admit that some would - for instance, non-gun related killings - people are going to keep killing) then we fix that.

There is no silver bullet for crime and violence. But no one disagrees that removing guns would remove gun related deaths. Analogies with automobiles and other such violent deaths are immaterial to this discussion, just to we're clear.

[Svifnymr]

Except the great equalizer as you put it, becomes terribly unequal before to long.

Let me put it this way. In 10 years, whats to stop me from downloading and printing a spec assault rifle from the internet that isn't constrained by any kind of saftey rules or rules on rates of fire or grip or whatever that are forced upon gun manufacturers.

This ties back into what we've already discussed before. Part of the issue is that you vastly underestimate what is already possible, even easy, and vastly over estimate what 3d printing will allow.

The 3d printer will produce strong systems, perhaps on par with some of the current molding techniques in use in modern gun manufacturing. Those molding processes still require heat treatment and other process to prevent the gun from simply coming apart. This is if you wanted to build a true, re-usable firearm though, as opposed to your little hold-out/ zip gun, which is not meant for repeated use, but is disposable.

Those guns, likewise are already possible, even easy, today.

Because with 3D printing this is exactly what will happen. Just as people get in a chat room and conspire to write terrifying malware, people will crowdsource a truly nasty 3D printed gun, the ultimate small arms weapon. Then what is to stop me from going into your house with this weapon, completely out gunning you? Whats to happen if they solve long standing problems of weight, muzzle velocity, stopping power accuracy by computer modeling and fabricating at a rate traditional arms manufactuers can't match. People will work these problems and make something very deadly because it's a challenge to be surmounted, damn the consequences.

And maybe they'll make death rays too, if we're going to assume some arbitrary rate of development. You're way over estimating what is/is not possible, I think.

What happens when 3D printed ammunition shows up on the scene and all of a sudden all types of illegal to own rounds become common place, because resourceful internet people have found a way to turn floor cleaner into a component for explosive rounds?

Ammunition components:
1) slug: easily molded now from lead, could theoretically be built with 3d printer
2) powder: smokeless powder is a chemical and is not easy. Black powder you can make at home
3) primer/ ignition system: you'd be hard pressed to make primers, but I'm sure you could rig something togethor for your zip gun.
4) casing: I assume it's possible with 3d printing, so there's your big advantage.

[Dillon]

Except I really do trust my fellow man... etc.

Why would we? When the day comes... etc.

I truly believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and was well reminded of it when I served for jury duty a month ago (not guilty, by the way). It might sound naive but it's how I try to live and the hope is that others will extend the same to me.

I'd like to make it clear, that as a liberty lover first, and gun owner second I don't find guns glamorous, in fact I rather detest the necessity. I own them because I want to stack the deck in my favor, and I dread the day I might actually need to use them.

[Svifnymr]

zip guns are a scary proposition, for the person on either end of it, lol. im sure you know this, but they can be made out of some crazy shit - assuming one is willing to fire it. i am personally aware of one that was a 2 shot job, made from a bar of soap and using a rubber band and pen parts to act as the firing pin. it successfully fired both rounds (on a rig, nobody is crazy enough to actually hold the damned thing)

While I appreciate that there's more to it, it's worth noting that a Sten gun is basically a pipe with a trigger...

There's plenty of guns that you could make with a dremel and some supplies from home depot, if you were sufficiently dedicated. In most cases it'd probably be more stable than one of the 3d printed guns. (The AR15 3d printed lower requires nearly every other part being bought, as it were.)

---------- Post added 2013-05-07 at 07:42 PM ----------

Gun's aren't legally liable for your safety, as ruled by the Supreme Court.

I think you mistyped here.

---------- Post added 2013-05-07 at 07:44 PM ----------

Most of this, definitely. Except the possession thing - make it a fine, along with confiscating possessions of the person who is in possession of the firearm. More money for government while still taking illegal guns off the street (just a suggestion).

However, as an ancillary policy necessity, we'd have to eliminate most prison time for the majority of drug related crimes. Not trying to derail the discussion, but we already have too many people in jail as a society.

We build a big wall around the country, then catapult out the evil doers and not let anyone in without a background check and psychological profile.

Also, robots, we need robots to keep the piece.

[rhandric]

I think you mistyped here. .

Bah, you're right, I meant cops...going to change that now

[Svifnymr]

Roger, seems to make more sense, at least as a hypothetical.

That being said, I reject the example. I could just as easily put up hypotherical numbers and ask you a reverse question. Both would have no factual basis for discussion. What we KNOW FOR SURE is that removing all personal firearms would reduce gun related deaths. Period. If other crimes do go up (and, for the record, I have to admit that some would - for instance, non-gun related killings - people are going to keep killing) then we fix that.

There is no silver bullet for crime and violence. But no one disagrees that removing guns would remove gun related deaths. Analogies with automobiles and other such violent deaths are immaterial to this discussion, just to we're clear.

What do you mean no one disagrees? A simple web search will show that Australia's gun deaths went down less than ours over the same time frame. It certainly didn't eliminate it. Granted they didn't completely eliminate firearms, regardless of what both sides of the debate present it as. Same with the UK, they still have ownership of firearms, so do they really count as an example? They still have gun violence, so I guess they need to crack down harder? Mexico's "source of guns" gets bandied about with various numbers, but with their corrupt government, the drug cartels have no problem procuring the machineguns they use. (Supplied by the USA to Mexico)

We've invariably brought up the car comparisons, and the same people that bring it up, then want to say you can't compare them, so it doesn't really matter. The actual comparison would be between "private ownership of firearms" and "private ownership of automobiles". Plenty of European countries use lots of public transportation and bicycles.

[cubby]

We build a big wall around the country, then catapult out the evil doers and not let anyone in without a background check and psychological profile.

Also, robots, we need robots to keep the piece.

Ok, but I get to be in charge of the robots.


But seriously:

On a hugely ironic note, I thoroughly enjoy shooting guns (at targets). I'm qualified in a number of fire arms and have taken a few NRA safety classes. Shooting can be very enjoyable (as a sport, of course ). I don't actually own a gun, as my wife doesn't want one in the house.

This issue is much more complicated that just a 2nd Amendment right and the liberal Subaru-driving gun-hating tree huggers vs the ignorant southern-born red neck gun-toting conservatives. It's a matter of historic pride and legacy, along with a balancing of effects resulting from policy implementation (for example, while I rejected rhandric's hypothesis, his point is still very valid - what does happen when other violent crimes go up because people no longer have what was an effective personal deterrent?).

I have no answers to these issues. But I'm tired of seeing little kids dying from gunfire.

[Svifnymr]

I truly believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and was well reminded of it when I served for jury duty a month ago (not guilty, by the way). It might sound naive but it's how I try to live and the hope is that others will extend the same to me.

I'd like to make it clear, that as a liberty lover first, and gun owner second I don't find guns glamorous, in fact I rather detest the necessity. I own them because I want to stack the deck in my favor, and I dread the day I might actually need to use them.

I haven't been on a jury in years, but the case I had was actually "possession of a firearm on school grounds", I believe they picked me (a gun shop employee at the time) to "counter" putting this other guy on that was very liberal. (Not to say that all liberals are this way, but I'd describe this guy as "liberal wussy", which hopefully doesn't offend anyone too much, but should illustrate what he acted like.)

[cubby]

What do you mean no one disagrees? A simple web search will show that Australia's gun deaths went down less than ours over the same time frame. It certainly didn't eliminate it. Granted they didn't completely eliminate firearms, regardless of what both sides of the debate present it as. Same with the UK, they still have ownership of firearms, so do they really count as an example? They still have gun violence, so I guess they need to crack down harder? Mexico's "source of guns" gets bandied about with various numbers, but with their corrupt government, the drug cartels have no problem procuring the machineguns they use. (Supplied by the USA to Mexico)

If you eliminate all guns, there won't be any gun deaths. Not tough to follow.

Not sure what you mean by Australia's gun deaths. UK does not allow casual ownership of guns, and while they are legal to have after a LONG process, ownership is highly regulated. And they are a terrific example - far fewer gun-related deaths per capita. Mexico is basically a criminally run state (not that the politicians are criminals, but that they have no control over their rampant drug cartels) so it's a piss-poor example for any crime related statistic.

We've invariably brought up the car comparisons, and the same people that bring it up, then want to say you can't compare them, so it doesn't really matter. The actual comparison would be between "private ownership of firearms" and "private ownership of automobiles". Plenty of European countries use lots of public transportation and bicycles.

Comparisons with other [insert here]-related deaths to gun-related deaths are irrelevant, as each category is ripe with complicated reasons for their overall numbers.

[Svifnymr]

Ok, but I get to be in charge of the robots.

Duh, the robots will be in charge of themselves. It's the only way to be safe.

But seriously:

On a hugely ironic note, I thoroughly enjoy shooting guns (at targets). I'm qualified in a number of fire arms and have taken a few NRA safety classes. Shooting can be very enjoyable (as a sport, of course ). I don't actually own a gun, as my wife doesn't want one in the house.

I had a girlfriend that hated guns. Not in a "I don't want to go shooting" way, but in a "I don't want one in the same building with me" way. When I needed to store my shotgun off premises, I asked if they could hold it there, and I'd keep the barrel, so it'd just be the bare action with no ammo or barrel or anything, but they still swore it would be too dangerous.

This issue is much more complicated that just a 2nd Amendment right and the liberal Subaru-driving gun-hating tree huggers vs the ignorant southern-born red neck gun-toting conservatives. It's a matter of historic pride and legacy, along with a balancing of effects resulting from policy implementation (for example, while I rejected rhandric's hypothesis, his point is still very valid - what does happen when other violent crimes go up because people no longer have what was an effective personal deterrent?).

I have no answers to these issues. But I'm tired of seeing little kids dying from gunfire.

Sure, but it's a matter of balancing the many vs the few. To bring up Australia again, they banned semi auto guns due to a massacre in 1996. They've since had a few mass murders via arson.

I'm sure in the same time frame, the USA has had numerous gun massacres and also arson massacres, but no way to know what would have happened differently.

Or, as a great philosopher once said when told how many people died from gun violence, "Would you prefer they were all pushed out of windows?".

[cubby]

Duh, the robots will be in charge of themselves. It's the only way to be safe.

Lol, of course - what was I thinking?

I had a girlfriend that hated guns. Not in a "I don't want to go shooting" way, but in a "I don't want one in the same building with me" way. When I needed to store my shotgun off premises, I asked if they could hold it there, and I'd keep the barrel, so it'd just be the bare action with no ammo or barrel or anything, but they still swore it would be too dangerous.

Some people just put up a line and won't cross it, regardless of logic. It's not fun, but it's understandable. I'm the same way with bugs.

Sure, but it's a matter of balancing the many vs the few. To bring up Australia again, they banned semi auto guns due to a massacre in 1996. They've since had a few mass murders via arson.

I'm sure in the same time frame, the USA has had numerous gun massacres and also arson massacres, but no way to know what would have happened differently.

Or, as a great philosopher once said when told how many people died from gun violence, "Would you prefer they were all pushed out of windows?".

See, I am one of those few people who have actually read up on the issue, before posting opinions (you are the same, it seems). Banning assault weapons will do almost nothing to gun-related deaths - except eliminate the horrific slayings/mass-murders. But those only account for approximately 2-3% of all gun-related deaths. That's why it has to be all of them - especially the personal ones.