Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

I hope you called the ATF since there AR's are now illegal. I love how your on here promoting banning weapons and you know people making them how hypocritical.

Not sure if he's from the USA, could be he knows folks with a registered sear or class 2 manufacturers. Doesn't really impact the discussion either way.

[Extrazero8]

I think perhaps that instead of weighing it in "how many deaths would this have stopped in the past" we should instead judge the merits of these efforts on "what are we getting vs what are we giving up to get it".

In my mind reducing the odds of a mass shooting by giving up weapons that don't serve a serious legitimate purpose is fine by me, but as I already said, I'm not terribly set on it.

Of course its fine by you. You're not the one required to give anything up.

[Spectral]

I think perhaps that instead of weighing it in "how many deaths would this have stopped in the past" we should instead judge the merits of these efforts on "what are we getting vs what are we giving up to get it".

In my mind reducing the odds of a mass shooting by giving up weapons that don't serve a serious legitimate purpose is fine by me, but as I already said, I'm not terribly set on it.

Those are pretty similar things to assess though, right? Obviously there's a non-trivial difference, but I don't think it's unreasonable at all to look at the history of shootings to try to determine whether this is a practical danger that we should be terribly concerned with. I don't so much disagree that we gain some marginal benefit, but I'm skeptical that the marginal benefit would be worth the total costs. Keep in mind, we're looking at costs of implementing policies down to a local level, enforcement costs, presumably some amount of jailing costs, and economic costs. This isn't an entirely free proposition that can be evaluated just on the basis of, "would it be better if people didn't have "assault weapons"?".

I literally haven't seen anyone throw out any cost/benefit analysis. I know people get squicky about those when lives are on the line, but they're the only real way to set policy.

[Svifnymr]

It is legal to change the sear if you apply for the paperwork and you are approved. That said, we don't know if the people he knows did or didn't.

I always thought that if I became rich, I'd buy myself some town in the middle of no-where, appoint myself sheriff and have the biggest arsenal you'd ever seen. "Yes, I need a couple HK's... for TESTING".

[Rocko9]

I always thought that if I became rich, I'd buy myself some town in the middle of no-where, appoint myself sheriff and have the biggest arsenal you'd ever seen. "Yes, I need a couple HK's... for TESTING".

We have a similar train of thought, except I'd buy AKs, ARs, Ma Deuce, and a couple other things :P

[Spectral]

Sure, but mostly it's more like "I saw on the internet so I believe it!". The main thing is that there's no real "vetting process" for information in most of these discussions.
It's more a matter of what tools you have than what knowledge you have. By the same token, you could just buy an 80% receiver and do the same. Or heck, just build a sten or similar gun, depending on your purpose behind it.
Though my point was more that all the same could be said about a Glock or most other semi-autos.

Yeah, that's fair enough. I don't think people's process for determining what's true is very good, as a generality.

Not sure if he's from the USA, could be he knows folks with a registered sear or class 2 manufacturers. Doesn't really impact the discussion either way.

The people I knew were former Marines that seemed to know a fair bit. I'm pretty sure what they were doing was illegal, but my give a shit level is spectacularly low. My first thought when someone says, "Hey, check this out" isn't "how can I put this guy in jail???". I grew up in a very rural area, people had all sorts of weapons that I'm pretty sure were either on the edges of legal or well past those edges, and it didn't really seem to concern much of anyone.

[ugotownd]

That is true Rocko9 but how many people honestly do that but like you said we dont know. To spectral I'm sorry I though your were one of the Fused campers.

[Laize]

Well when you're regulating things you have to look at what you're getting for the danger. After all if we only looked at danger we'd ban cars in a heartbeat, but what we gain by having them outweighs it. You could say the same of pistols while claiming that assault rifles are another case and maintain intellectual honesty.

There remains no sound reason to ban semi-automatic weapons.

[Svifnymr]

I grew up in a very rural area, people had all sorts of weapons that I'm pretty sure were either on the edges of legal or well past those edges, and it didn't really seem to concern much of anyone.

Back in the early 80's is when the big "machine gun scares" started, open bolt mac's were basically the machineguns with a welded bead to prevent them from going full auto. Open bolt uzi's were also easy. Both were of course "corrected" by ATF along with some other guns.

The first AR15's shipped with full auto hammer/sear/disconnector/ bolt carrier. They simply missed the auto-sear and the selector didn't rotate, that's where the drop-in-auto-sear came from.

Current AR15's leave the area where the auto-sear would be unmachined, there's still no third hole for the sear, and the M16 hammer/trigger/disconnector are controlled for the most part.

My experiences were different, since I worked at a gun store late 90's/early 00's. Once a year I'd be fixing some illegal conversion back to the legal configuration because the folks that had them realized how useless an illegal machinegun IS, in a city. Can't shoot it at the range, can't use it in self-defense, can't do much of anything with it. Even registered/ legal machineguns don't have a lot of places to shoot with down here.

[Wells]

Of course its fine by you. You're not the one required to give anything up.

No one is talking about taking away your guns.

Those are pretty similar things to assess though, right? Obviously there's a non-trivial difference, but I don't think it's unreasonable at all to look at the history of shootings to try to determine whether this is a practical danger that we should be terribly concerned with. I don't so much disagree that we gain some marginal benefit, but I'm skeptical that the marginal benefit would be worth the total costs. Keep in mind, we're looking at costs of implementing policies down to a local level, enforcement costs, presumably some amount of jailing costs, and economic costs. This isn't an entirely free proposition that can be evaluated just on the basis of, "would it be better if people didn't have "assault weapons"?".

I think potential danger is what you have to weigh as opposed to prior danger. I mean no one has ever had a home nuclear reactor go critical and kill a ton of people, if you'll pardon the extreme example, but we know the potential danger of allowing home nuclear reactors is pretty significant.

There remains no sound reason to ban semi-automatic weapons.

I don't think that's particularly desirable either, but then again not all semi auto weapons are created equal.

[Laize]

I don't think that's particularly desirable either, but then again not all semi auto weapons are created equal.

If you're referring to a semi-automatic grenade launcher I'm inclined to agree.

If you're talking about rifles vs handguns I'm inclined to shake my head in confusion.

[Extrazero8]

No one is talking about taking away your guns.

I didn't say there they taking away my guns buddy.

[Svifnymr]

No one is talking about taking away your guns.

The thing is, all these posts seem to neglect the adjective in front of "ban". The Assault Weapons Ban does ban some guns, even if it's not a total ban. In addition, restricting the ability to modify a current gun (say, changing your stock on your 10-22), restricting your ability to sell a gun, restricting your purchase of new guns, et cetera. So yeah, he said "give anything up", which is accurate, though you're also right that they're not "taking away your guns".

I mean, if the ban passed, I wouldn't be able to buy a new gun with a threaded barrel for use with my registered silencer.

Also, "no one" is not accurate, plenty of folks want a total ban. Certainly not a majority, but they are people too.

I think potential danger is what you have to weigh as opposed to prior danger. I mean no one has ever had a home nuclear reactor go critical and kill a ton of people, if you'll pardon the extreme example, but we know the potential danger of allowing home nuclear reactors is pretty significant.

A side discussion would be "if the writers of the Constitution were alive today, how would they react to government regulations". Cars, computers, internet, all this stuff that has occurred and was not in the Constitution...

I don't think that's particularly desirable either, but then again not all semi auto weapons are created equal.

I think we can all agree that her list of "weapons exempted" and "weapons specifically banned" is just stupid and padding her word count. It is also amusing to me that she is so obsessed with grenade launchers. I'd be hard pressed to find a shotgun with a grenade launcher attached, and I'm certain there is no public health hazard!

[Rocko9]

A side discussion would be "if the writers of the Constitution were alive today, how would they react to government regulations". Cars, computers, internet, all this stuff that has occurred and was not in the Constitution...

They would have heart attacks lol

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

To counter post about the need and want. I am going to re-direct you to Joe Biden. That pretty much says because you have a right to bear arms. It doesn't mean you can take home a grenade launcher. Everything has to have its limits.

“You have an individual right to own a weapon both for recreation, for hunting and also for your self-protection,” he said. "But just as you don’t have an individual right to go out and buy an F-15—if you’re a billionaire—with ordnance on it, just like you don’t have the right to buy an M-1 tank, just like you don’t have a right to buy an automatic weapon" you should not be able to get other weapons for which there is "no reasonable societal justification, or constitutional justification."

Joe Bidens "opinion" and thoughts on the matter mean nothing. Seriously stop watching CNN.

[FusedMass]

That is true Rocko9 but how many people honestly do that but like you said we dont know. To spectral I'm sorry I though your were one of the Fused campers.

If people agree with less assault weapons is a GOOD thing is very insulting to turn it around and call them A Fused Camper.

Is it perhaps he see's the logic and reason in what I am saying. Just to note to Lemon. I still cannot see you're post because I blocked you that day you kept repeating insults to me even though I asked you several times to come with a solid argument rather then your overplayed

Go watch MSNBC.

[Wells]

I didn't say there they taking away my guns buddy.

So when you said you were being told to give things up you were just spouting nonsense?

A side discussion would be "if the writers of the Constitution were alive today, how would they react to government regulations". Cars, computers, internet, all this stuff that has occurred and was not in the Constitution...

who gives a shit?

[FusedMass]

Let's talk about Gun Control outside the US or better yet. Compared to.

Japan-

In this country, guns are few and far between. And so is gun violence. Guns were used in only seven murders in Japan — a nation of about 130 million — in all of 2011, the most recent year for official statistics. According to police, more people — nine — were murdered with scissors.
Though its gun ownership rates are tiny compared to the United States, Japan has more than 120,000 registered gun owners and more than 400,000 registered firearms. So why is there so little gun violence?

SWITZERLAND — GUNS AND PEACE

The country's 8 million people own about 2.3 million firearms. But firearms were used in just 24 Swiss homicides in 2009, a rate of about 0.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. The U.S. rate that year was about 11 times higher.

Unlike in the United States, where guns are used in the majority of murders, in Switzerland only a quarter of murders involve firearms. The most high-profile case in recent years occurred when a disgruntled petitioner shot dead 14 people at a city council meeting in 2001.

Experts say Switzerland's low gun-crime figures are influenced by the fact that most firearms are military rifles issued to men when they join the country's conscript army . Criminologist Martin Killias at the University of Zurich notes that as Switzerland cut the size of its army in recent decades, gun violence — particularly domestic killings and suicides — dropped too.

In fact. From the article in some places like Mexico and Brazil. The murder rate is actually HIGHER then the United States. Despite them having a Gun Ban. Places like this Mexico and Brazil. The answer is because the Drug Cartels are more in control of their country then the actual government. This is not about banning weapons like handguns or Shot Guns.

It's Military Style Assult weapons

http://news.yahoo.com/around-world-g...075244259.html

[Rocko9]

Well duh, of course we have more gun deaths because there are more guns. Five bucks says we have more truck related deaths too, because we have more trucks.

As to the Swiss, I would do as they do. Give everyone an assault rifle and make them qualify on a yearly basis.

[FusedMass]

Well duh, of course we have more gun deaths because there are more guns. Five bucks says we have more truck related deaths too, because we have more trucks.

As to the Swiss, I would do as they do. Give everyone an assault rifle and make them qualify on a yearly basis.

The arugment that it has less murders because it's smaller does not always apply to every situation.

Guns were used in only seven murders in Japan — a nation of about 130 million — in all of 2011,

Every Year in the United States we have an average of ten thousand deaths it goes up and down from 9 thousand to 10 that is more then a big difference. It's massive. How can place with 130 million people not have more murders and we have one each and every other day. Simply more people cannot always be the answer.