Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

It isn't zero yet.

It never will.

[Extrazero8]

Make the gun seller 50% responsible for any harm caused by the gun, and watch gun crime and circulation numbers drop like the boxer in snake eyes.

Yeah, thats not going to happen but its cute.

They wouldn't sell it to anyone, and would need to provide training amd mental health checks etc. Both parties would have to work very hard to obtain a gun, second amendment untouched, and your kids also get to stay alive.

Unless the crazy guy decides to use a bomb. But if a gun wasn't used that makes it ok right?

[PhaelixWW]

But if you held all other corollaries constant, a heavy handed national gun registry and procurement controls and hoops would force gun purchases go down, making the price of black market firearms skyrocket because it would be forced to steal guns from law abiding people more often.

Why do people keep saying this kind of garbage? The whole concept of "trickle down gun control" is so backwards its ridiculous.

sarcasm/

You know, criminals love to steal money and expensive things, then use them to fund a criminal empire. So maybe we should ban expendable capital. Force everyone in the country to work for minimum wage. That would keep people from being able to afford any kind of luxury, or even have spare cash in their wallets. Who'd rob a house when all they can get is some TP? Who'd mug a person if all they can get is food stamps? Isn't that a great way to reduce crime?

/sarcasm

You don't punish the law-abiding just so that it might, some day, have some tangential negative effect on the criminal element of society.

[belfpala]

You don't punish the law-abiding just so that it might, some day, have some tangential negative effect on the criminal element of society.

This law abiding person doesn't consider taking your guns away to be a punishment.

[PhaelixWW]

This law abiding person doesn't consider taking your guns away to be a punishment.

Do you think you speak for everyone?

[Zoranon]

This law abiding person doesn't consider taking your guns away to be a punishment.

Wow just wow. And I though nobody could make worse arguments for the pro-control side than Fusedmass did.

[rhandric]

This law abiding person doesn't consider taking your guns away to be a punishment.

What's next, law abiding citizens don't consider forcing you to be locked in padded rooms for life to be a punishment, as it's the only way to prevent absolutely all crime?

[Eroginous]

This law abiding person doesn't consider taking your guns away to be a punishment.

This law abiding citizen is happy that your opinion is just that - YOUR opinion.

[Daelak]

Why do people keep saying this kind of garbage? The whole concept of "trickle down gun control" is so backwards its ridiculous.

sarcasm/

You know, criminals love to steal money and expensive things, then use them to fund a criminal empire. So maybe we should ban expendable capital. Force everyone in the country to work for minimum wage. That would keep people from being able to afford any kind of luxury, or even have spare cash in their wallets. Who'd rob a house when all they can get is some TP? Who'd mug a person if all they can get is food stamps? Isn't that a great way to reduce crime?

/sarcasm

You don't punish the law-abiding just so that it might, some day, have some tangential negative effect on the criminal element of society.

Even though there is data from other nations that show lower amount of guns in circulation, both legal and black market, equals less gun related incidents?

[Eroginous]

Even though there is data from other nations that show lower amount of guns in circulation, both legal and black market, equals less gun related incidents?

You do realize that the US has seen a dramatic increase in the number of guns in circulation, as well as an all time low in the number of gun related crimes?

Number of guns =/= crime rate.

[rhandric]

Even though there is data from other nations that show lower amount of guns in circulation, both legal and black market, equals less gun related incidents?

And the number of gun related incidents in the US have gone down in the last 20 years by the same amount as Australia, despite the increase in gun ownership. Correlation != causation

But go on, keep dismissing that evidence as it's been presented countless times in this thread.

[steale]

This law abiding person doesn't consider taking your guns away to be a punishment.

If you don't consider it a punishment to take away my guns, what do you consider it?

[Vuljatar]

Make the gun seller 50% responsible for any harm caused by the gun, and watch gun crime and circulation numbers drop like the boxer in snake eyes.

They wouldn't sell it to anyone, and would need to provide training amd mental health checks etc. Both parties would have to work very hard to obtain a gun, second amendment untouched, and your kids also get to stay alive.

I can't even describe how idiotic this is.

Would you suggest we do the same thing to car manufacturers? How about holding McDonalds 50% responsible for regular customers who die of health issues relating to their poor diet? Is Budweiser 50% to blame for the deaths caused by drunk drivers? Oh wait, shit, if a person gets wasted on Budweiser and then gets in his Ford and kills someone driving home, that would mean that Ford is 50% to blame, Budweiser is 50% to blame, and the drunk driver is just an innocent victim! It's brilliant!

How old are you? 5? 7? You clearly have no grasp on the concept of personal responsibility.

---------- Post added 2013-06-06 at 07:54 PM ----------

This law abiding person doesn't consider taking your guns away to be a punishment.

Care to justify that statement? It seems to defy logic.

Even though there is data from other nations that show lower amount of guns in circulation, both legal and black market, equals less gun related incidents?

Correlation does not equal causation, and doesn't even imply it in cases where there are so many differing variables.

[Roxinius]

Make the gun seller 50% responsible for any harm caused by the gun, and watch gun crime and circulation numbers drop like the boxer in snake eyes.

They wouldn't sell it to anyone, and would need to provide training amd mental health checks etc. Both parties would have to work very hard to obtain a gun, second amendment untouched, and your kids also get to stay alive.

honestly one of the stupidest things i've ever heard with gun crimes being down theirs no need for more regulation

[PhaelixWW]

Even though there is data from other nations that show lower amount of guns in circulation, both legal and black market, equals less gun related incidents?

My point wasn't that lower numbers of guns wouldn't necessarily lower gun violence. My point was that you were basically talking about introducing legislation that would specifically target the law-abiding solely for it's secondary effect on criminals. Basically, "I can't punish you, so I'm going to punish your neighbor (even though they're innocent) in the hopes that it deters or negatively impacts you."

If you want to talk about cracking down, you can make the impact more significant for people committing crimes with a firearm. Mandatory double sentencing for crimes involving a firearm. No possibility for parole.

At least those would be laws that punish the criminal gun owners and not the law-abiding gun owners.

[Eroginous]

At least those would be laws that punish the criminal gun owners and not the law-abiding gun owners.

But then owning a gun wouldn't be so scary that most people are too afraid to exercise their rights to do so.

[belfpala]

My point wasn't that lower numbers of guns wouldn't necessarily lower gun violence. My point was that you were basically talking about introducing legislation that would specifically target the law-abiding solely for it's secondary effect on criminals. Basically, "I can't punish you, so I'm going to punish your neighbor (even though they're innocent) in the hopes that it deters or negatively impacts you."

If you want to talk about cracking down, you can make the impact more significant for people committing crimes with a firearm. Mandatory double sentencing for crimes involving a firearm. No possibility for parole.

At least those would be laws that punish the criminal gun owners and not the law-abiding gun owners.

Almost every gun was a legal gun at some point. I've said this over and fucking over, and it's never addressed. Criminals don't get magical guns from thin air.

And there's no evidence that harsher sentences reduce crime, as far as I know.

So am I being ridiculous? I don't think so.

[Extrazero8]

Almost every gun was a legal gun at some point. I've said this over and fucking over, and it's never addressed. Criminals don't get magical guns from thin air.

And there's no evidence that harsher sentences reduce crime, as far as I know.

So am I being ridiculous? I don't think so.

Then why have our guns to population numbers become almost 1 to 1 but our gun crime per 100k gone down?

Guns don't = crime and it seems that you're trying to draw that conclusion without evidence.

[Eroginous]

Almost every gun was a legal gun at some point. I've said this over and fucking over, and it's never addressed. Criminals don't get magical guns from thin air.

Here's the problem with your logic.

1. You believe a gun is illegal unless it's owner meets some predefined criteria.

2. You believe the parameters of that criteria should be defined in such a way that as few people as possible would be allowed to have guns.

We don't have rights because we meet some predefined criteria for them. We have rights because they guarantee our freedom from injustice. If someone seeks to take away our rights, they are a criminal (except in circumstances where we commit a crime ourselves).

With that said, every American citizen has the right to bear arms. They are given that right as a free people to protect themselves from injustice. Whether or not you feel comfortable with that is completely irrelevant. The fact that a tiny fraction of a percentage of people misuse their rights to commit crimes with a gun does not take away from the necessity for men to have those rights in the first place. It doesn't matter if we are talking about free speech, freedom from unlawful searches, or the right to bear arms, all of them are equally necessary to establish that Americans are a free people.

If some asshat decides to go buy a gun, walk down to a crowded place and shoot a bunch of innocent people, we have a justice system specifically do deal with those kinds of people. If he kills himself to avoid justice, then there was no better outcome we could have hoped for. A dead criminal is a criminal who never commits another crime.

For the most part (with exception to NFA items and weapons in states that require additional licensing/registration) anyone in this country can LEGALLY buy or sell a gun from another person without any paper trail. This idea that there are a bunch of illegal guns out there, is largely false. Are there a lot of guns out there unaccounted for? Sure. Are there a lot of people out there buying/selling guns between themselves without any regulation? Of course.

But that doesn't mean those guns are illegal, and it certainly doesn't mean that those guns are turning from 'legal guns' into 'illegal guns.'

If person A meets person B in a Walmart parking lot, and person B ends up buying a S&W Tac 9mm handgun from person A, that gun is still a legal gun. If person B is planning on using that gun to commit a crime, that gun is still a legal gun. If person B attempts to rob a bank, shooting half a dozen people before being taken down by police, that gun is still a legal gun (even though it was used in the commission of a crime).

The only way that gun would be an 'illegal gun,' is if it were obtained through a licensed FFL without the proper paperwork, obtained in a jurisdiction prohibiting that type of weapon from being bought/sold, or if it were stolen. Now, just because a gun was once a legal gun, and becomes an illegal gun, doesn't mean you can stop criminals by going after legally owned guns.

It's not a gun that commits a crime, it's a person. Someone who has the intention and will to commit a crime will do so no matter what. If they feel like they need a gun to do it, they will get a gun, no matter what, no matter how few people legally own them. A disarmed society is NOT a safer society. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

And there's no evidence that harsher sentences reduce crime, as far as I know.

People commit crimes for one of three reasons:

1. They are willing to accept the consequences of being caught, knowing that the payoff is 'worth it' if they don't.

2. They are desperate and the consequences of being caught are better than the alternative.

3. They enjoy the act of committing a crime, whether it's the thrill of living dangerously or the enjoyment of others' misery.

This is why no law can ever truly prevent someone from committing a crime. Take away all the guns and melt them down, you will still have people committing violent crimes where people end up dead. You cannot stop crime by removing guns from society. Hell, you cannot remove guns from society. If you want to stop crimes, you have to focus on the causes of crimes to begin with:

- Poverty
- Lack of health care
- Lack of mental health care
- Poor job market
- Poor education system
- Extreme social class disparity
- Lack of opportunity

If we had a government willing to educate people beyond high school for free. If we had a government that provided standardized housing for everyone who couldn't afford their own housing. If we had a government that put people to work doing meaningful jobs no matter where they grew up or how much their family made. If we had a government that provided health care services to everyone regardless of their social status. If we had a government that refused to let corporations earn 60% of our countries wealth. If we had a government that refused to let people live in squalor with no opportunities at living a meaningful life.

You would see a crime rate (with guns) less than the crime rate of any other country on earth. You wouldn't even have to remove a single gun from the hands of any citizen to achieve that goal.

So am I being ridiculous? I don't think so.

The bottom line is that the problem isn't caused by the existence of guns. It's caused by worsening socioeconomic factors and guns are just a tool people use in desperation. Some people misuse them because their life is so bad they can't see any other way out.

Hold those people responsible, and not the rest of us.

[PhaelixWW]

Almost every gun was a legal gun at some point. I've said this over and fucking over, and it's never addressed. Criminals don't get magical guns from thin air.

It's been addressed countless times, you just choose to ignore it.

Almost all guns were legal at some point. So your response is to limit legal guns.

Every criminal was a law-abiding person at some point. So why is the response not the same? Let's lock everyone up, limit everyone's freedoms. That way, we can make sure that we're limiting people's ability to commit crime.

So am I being ridiculous?

You don't see any problem punishing the innocent to get at the guilty, so yeah, I think that's my point.