Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TwoNineMarine]

So making it easier to access and more reliable won't make it easier to solve crimes? Riiiiight.


And I've said I'm Ryan Gosling IRL. Doesn't make it true when I refuse to back up the claim.

And you've refused to show proof that it'll actually help solve crimes. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

[Wells]

And you've refused to show proof that it'll actually help solve crimes. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

You're confusing a conclusion with a statement of fact. Please back up your assertion that most crimes are committed with illegally purchased weapons.

[Eroginous]

So making it easier to access and more reliable won't make it easier to solve crimes? Riiiiight.

I'm still not convinced we need to make the acquisition of private information easier to obtain by the government, even if it is to solve crimes.

Information goes both ways, you know. Easier to solve crimes, easier to abuse power.

[Wells]

I'm still not convinced we need to make the acquisition of private information easier to obtain by the government, even if it is to solve crimes.

Information goes both ways, you know. Easier to solve crimes, easier to abuse power.

They already have the information. This just improves the system. Efficiency is good.

[Grizzly Willy]

It is. My privacy is MINE. Not yours. Not anyone elses. If you want to go hang out with the NSA by all means.

My understanding is that privacy isn't included in the constitution, at least not explicitly. It isn't a "right" per se. If you want to fight for it, by all means, go ahead. However, there isn't much a legal grounding for the argument, at least from what I understand.

- - - Updated - - -

And you've refused to show proof that it'll actually help solve crimes. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

How do you feel about Voter ID laws?

[TwoNineMarine]

My understanding is that privacy isn't included in the constitution, at least not explicitly. It isn't a "right" per se. If you want to fight for it, by all means, go ahead. However, there isn't much a legal grounding for the argument, at least from what I understand.

- - - Updated - - -


How do you feel about Voter ID laws?

I think you should have to provide valid ID to vote. The right to vote is for citizens.

- - - Updated - - -

They already have the information. This just improves the system. Efficiency is good.

They do not know what guns I have and I aim to keep it that way.

[Svifnymr]

Whatever I mean you fill out some contact information or whatever when you take possession, when your fill out the registration, either way not a serious hassle in any way.

There really is no solid argument against a registry. We already absorb a lot of that data. Its not a constitutional issue. All it is is improving and streamlining data.

It is the directed nature of it. The current system is focused on tracing a gun. It is not a general database of gun owners. The current system is efficient for what it does, not because it does it instantly, but because it is a mixture of speed, cost and rights. The new system you propse is not simply "add out of business dealers to a database" which could (and is) done on some level without changing anything, it is an entire new system that will require more work than the current NICS. It requires more than simply processing new forms, but the inputting of all the old information. Even once you get past the current backlog, you'd still be adding a massive amount of new information going forward each year.

So then we measure that against what impact it will have on a criminal investigation. What will it help in an investigative situation unless you're actively harassing random gun owners to try to match their gun to one not at the scene? It reeks of the fired shell casing databases that several states enacted and were complete failures.

[Lomak]

Since none of you anti gun zealots seem to be interested in facts or (god forbid) informing yourself I'll answer my own previous question.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

80% of the criminals got their gun from an illegal means IE was not registered to them.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/a...nd_crime.shtml

Anyone else need to be taken to school today?

[Grizzly Willy]

I think you should have to provide valid ID to vote. The right to vote is for citizens.

I think you should register your weapon. The right to own a firearm is for citizens, and we can't guarantee that a firearm is owned by a citizen unless they it is registered to them.

[Svifnymr]

Except that's not entirely true at all.

We don't need another sidetrack in this thread, but we should be able to agree that it is true, but that the motivation is up for debate, right?

Your name is already in a fuckload of databases.

I want to be on enough lists to not be on the list of people that aren't on enough lists.

Registering a weapon impedes no "rights".

Creating additional costs, both in time and money, to exercise a right, does in fact impede/infringe that right. We can discuss reasonable infringements, but saying something is not an impediment is just wrong.

[Rukentuts]

80% of the criminals got their gun from an illegal means IE was not registered to them.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/a...nd_crime.shtml

Anyone else need to be taken to school today?

As someone who works in supply chain, I can tell you that registers lower losses considerably. The concept is applicable.

You're making my case way too easy.

[Grizzly Willy]

Since none of you anti gun zealots seem to be interested in facts or (god forbid) informing yourself I'll answer my own previous question

Why are people who are in favor of gun laws "anti-gun zealots"? I've never understood, at least from a rational standpoint, the insistence people have for employing hyperbole to describe their opponents. It would be the same as labeling you as a "gun nut."

[Rukentuts]

Creating additional costs, both in time and money, to exercise a right, does in fact impede/infringe that right. We can discuss reasonable infringements, but saying something is not an impediment is just wrong.

How is registering an impediment? Details.

[TwoNineMarine]

I think you should register your weapon. The right to own a firearm is for citizens, and we can't guarantee that a firearm is owned by a citizen unless they it is registered to them.

Once there is a law in place enforcing ID requirements to vote then we can move on to guns.

The amusing thing about all of this goes back to history.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place to ensure the government did not become tyrannical against it's people. That is why the Founding Fathers wanted the citizens to carry and own weapons. You are wanting to give the government a huge database letting them know where every single gun in the country is. The government is the exact body of people that shouldn't know who owns what weapons.

But I'm sure your counter argument will consist of it's not possible, it's never happened before, the Holocaust was fake, Cambodia was a lie, and so on and so forth.

Fact is a database won't happen and people who currently own guns won't go register them. Plain and simple. Just as all the illegal immigrants that get told to go vote illegally won't provide proof of citizenship.

[Jaxi]

It rewards society as a whole. I'm much less concerned about the rights of an individual (especially when it's the right to own an object) compared to the rights of society.

Well thankfully you don't have much of a constitutional argument for that.

[steale]

They already have the information. This just improves the system. Efficiency is good.

Again, the "slippery slope" with that argument is that if some efficiency is good, more efficiency is better. The NSA is more than capable of finding out when and where you purchased anything at all with a credit card, or anything with a background check. Why not just give access to this database of everything to all law enforcement in the name of efficiency?

[Rukentuts]

Again, the "slippery slope" with that argument is that if some efficiency is good, more efficiency is better. The NSA is more than capable of finding out when and where you purchased anything at all with a credit card, or anything with a background check. Why not just give access to this database of everything to all law enforcement in the name of efficiency?

Because giving someone a fuckload of info they don't need just because the small amount of data they need is within isn't efficient at all.

[Svifnymr]

I think you should register your weapon. The right to own a firearm is for citizens, and we can't guarantee that a firearm is owned by a citizen unless they it is registered to them.

Technically, the right to own guns is not a citizen restriction. You can be a resident alien. Which is tied in to the current background check system. Since you can't later sell your vote, the comparison breaks down at that point, though of course you do need an ID for that initial purchase.

[TZucchini]

Well thankfully you don't have much of a constitutional argument for that.

I know, right. Thank goodness your right to own a metal object supersedes the right of society to not be terrorized by gun violence.

[steale]

Why are people who are in favor of gun laws "anti-gun zealots"? I've never understood, at least from a rational standpoint, the insistence people have for employing hyperbole to describe their opponents. It would be the same as labeling you as a "gun nut."

It helps with the "you vs us" dichotomy. It's been going both ways, anti gun zealots and gun nuts, though by a minority of posters on either side.