Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Zoranon]

I could, but I don't particularly care. The gun control debate has reached a point where common sense doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's not very interesting who supports gun control on which month or after which shooting. The issue isn't solvable as long as people value weapons more than they do life itself. There's going to be a point in the distant future for this country in which private ownership of firearms will be a memory. It's inevitable.

I'm fairly indifferent on the overall gun issue. I do laugh when people cry about their rights every time someone so much as mentions a regulation though. I'm entirely unsympathetic to the idea of absolutes.

Its funny to see that the more the reality becomes worse for gun control, the more persuaded the pro-regulation people become that they will prevail in the future.

Btw if someone wants a good laugh, there is an article at the guardian, calling for international pressure on the USA with the goal of forcing tougher gun laws

[Themius]

Its funny to see that the more the reality becomes worse for gun control, the more persuaded the pro-regulation people become that they will prevail in the future.

Btw if someone wants a good laugh, there is an article at the guardian, calling for international pressure on the USA with the goal of forcing tougher gun laws

How is this any different from the US calling for sanctions against nations for doing things we don't agree with?

[NYC17]

The second quote seems pretty disingenuous, considering that the first quote is pretty absolute: an absolute view of one side and an absolute belief in the inevitability of the future.

As I said, in the distant future private ownership of guns will be a memory. It's not something I'm advocating for, but it's something I feel is inevitable. Could I be wrong? Sure, the future is unwritten(as far as we know). That's not absolutism. That's a tad bit different than discussing someone's belief in an absolute right.

- - - Updated - - -

Does one's right to ownership conflict with one's right not to be killed by one?

Since ownership has perpetuated the overabundance of guns in this country, yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Its funny to see that the more the reality becomes worse for gun control, the more persuaded the pro-regulation people become that they will prevail in the future.

Btw if someone wants a good laugh, there is an article at the guardian, calling for international pressure on the USA with the goal of forcing tougher gun laws

Your reply has nothing to do with my post. As I said I'm fairly indifferent on the issue at the moment, but if appreciating a common sense approach to the subject labels someone as "pro-regulation" by default, that pretty much crystallizes the problem at the outset.

[steale]

As I said, in the distant future private ownership of guns will be a memory. It's not something I'm advocating for, but it's something I feel is inevitable. Could I be wrong? Sure, the future is unwritten(as far as we know). That's not absolutism. That's a tad bit different than discussing someone's belief in an absolute right.

- - - Updated - - -



Since ownership has perpetuated the overabundance of guns in this country, yes.

- - - Updated - - -



Your reply has nothing to do with my post. As I said I'm fairly indifferent on the issue at the moment, but if appreciating a common sense approach to the subject labels someone as "pro-regulation" by default, that pretty much crystallizes the problem at the outset.

What exactly is the common sense approach that's been brought up? I've seen plenty of suggestions and agendas that lack any kind of sense, especially the common sort, so if I've missed something in the noise, I'd love to hear it.

[GreatOak]

That Kenya situation is terrible. Are they waiting to starve them out or what?

[Kalyyn]

It's an entirely accurate assessment of reality. When you boil it down to the cold hard truth, individuals care about their own rights, or perception of their rights, than they do someone else's. In their minds, their right to bear arms supersedes someone else's right not be killed by one, otherwise this wouldn't even be a debate.

What exactly does your diatribe about the "inevitably of government" have to do with the inevitability of the future of firearm ownership? It's simply not a sustainable policy.

Remind me again how I'm violating anyone's right to life? Last I checked, I have yet to shoot a single American.

[GreatOak]

Remind me again how I'm violating anyone's right to life? Last I checked, I have yet to shoot a single American.

It's funny that my right to own a weapon cancels out someone's right to life somehow.

[NYC17]

Remind me again how I'm violating anyone's right to life? Last I checked, I have yet to shoot a single American.

The policy as whole perpetuates the situation in which people feel their right to bear arms supersedes the right of someone not to be killed by a firearm. You can personalize it all you want, but the point I'm making is on the policy as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny that my right to own a weapon cancels out someone's right to life somehow.

It's not particularly funny, it's just the reality of the situation. The right to bear arms has perpetuated a culture of tolerance of guns, and the consequences that come with them, to an absurd degree. Twenty kids killed by a person with a gun? Sad, but "I have a right to bear arms, the Constitution says so!".

That's always the argument, and that's just the way it goes.

[PhaelixWW]

The policy as whole perpetuates the situation in which people feel their right to bear arms supersedes the right of someone not to be killed by a firearm. You can personalize it all you want, but the point I'm making is on the policy as a whole.

Because people are only ever killed by firearms. And they're never saved by firearms.

Alternately, I guess your privilege of owning a car supersedes my right to not be killed in an auto accident.

Alternately, false logic is false.

[NYC17]

Because people are only ever killed by firearms. And they're never saved by firearms.

Alternately, I guess your privilege of owning a car supersedes my right to not be killed in an auto accident.

Alternately, false logic is false.

Are you comparing the right to bear arms with the privilege of driving? You've managed to provide false logic and false equivalency in one sentence. Congratulations.

You want to have an actual discussion, or are you just interested in posting a series of one liners in the hopes that you'll land a point? I'm up for either one, but football is taking most of my attention for the day.

[TwoNineMarine]

Are you comparing the right to bear arms with the privilege of driving? You've managed to provide false logic and false equivalency in one sentence. Congratulations.

You want to have an actual discussion, or are you just interested in posting a series of one liners in the hopes that you'll land a point? I'm up for either one, but football is taking most of my attention for the day.

Why is the car comparison not a valid one? Why do people simply say it doesn't equate? I think it equates perfectly.

I don't ever plan on using my weapons to harm someone unless they are threatening my wife or my children. Would that not be using the weapon in the protection of life?

If you are worried about me having to take a life to protect my family then yes, yes I will. My wife and children lives > someone trying to break in/rob/rape my family members.

My right to bear arms doesn't supersede your right to live. They are all equal in my opinion. If people choose not to carry a firearm to protect themselves or their families then that is their issue, not mine. If it were up to me every sane law abiding citizen in this country would carry a firearm.

[ugotownd]

The policy as whole perpetuates the situation in which people feel their right to bear arms supersedes the right of someone not to be killed by a firearm. You can personalize it all you want, but the point I'm making is on the policy as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not particularly funny, it's just the reality of the situation. The right to bear arms has perpetuated a culture of tolerance of guns, and the consequences that come with them, to an absurd degree. Twenty kids killed by a person with a gun? Sad, but "I have a right to bear arms, the Constitution says so!".

That's always the argument, and that's just the way it goes.

Somebody has been drinking to much Bloomberg juice.

[PhaelixWW]

Are you comparing the right to bear arms with the privilege of driving? You've managed to provide false logic and false equivalency in one sentence. Congratulations.

I'm applying your false logic to a similar scenario to illustrate its failure. There's nothing inherently wrong with comparing guns to cars. It's all in how you compare them. Indeed, in this situation, the fact that it doesn't hold true for a privilege should only underscore the fact that it doubly doesn't hold true for a right.

One person's legal ownership of a firearm is not responsible for another person's criminal act of homicide. The right to bear arms as a whole is not responsible for all gun homicide. You can't make a direct causal link there, even though you may want to try. The criminal is responsible and culpable for the crime, not the tool.

You want to have an actual discussion, or are you just interested in posting a series of one liners in the hopes that you'll land a point? I'm up for either one, but football is taking most of my attention for the day.

I think even the casual observer of this thread will know that I take more than a "one-liner" interest in responses to posts. I've probably posted more data, graphs, and links than any other poster ITT. But feel free to take your cheap shots.

[NYC17]

Somebody has been drinking to much Bloomberg juice.

Yet, you can't refute it. Someone's been drinking too mu...eh fuck it.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is the car comparison not a valid one? Why do people simply say it doesn't equate? I think it equates perfectly.

I don't ever plan on using my weapons to harm someone unless they are threatening my wife or my children. Would that not be using the weapon in the protection of life?

If you are worried about me having to take a life to protect my family then yes, yes I will. My wife and children lives > someone trying to break in/rob/rape my family members.

My right to bear arms doesn't supersede your right to live. They are all equal in my opinion. If people choose not to carry a firearm to protect themselves or their families then that is their issue, not mine. If it were up to me every sane law abiding citizen in this country would carry a firearm.

It's not equitable because it's not equitable. Driving takes demonstrated proficiency and knowledge. This changes with the type of vehicele you wish to operate. It is a privilege, not a right, and therefore it is subjected to different levels of requirements. Yet, gun ownership isn't.

I don't begrudge you the right for you to bear arms and defend yourself. That doesn't change that the obsession with guns in this country has enabled a culture that tolerates its consequences way more than it should.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Cars drive you around and they are actually registered.

[NYC17]

I'm applying your false logic to a similar scenario to illustrate its failure. There's nothing inherently wrong with comparing guns to cars. It's all in how you compare them. Indeed, in this situation, the fact that it doesn't hold true for a privilege should only underscore the fact that it doubly doesn't hold true for a right.

One person's legal ownership of a firearm is not responsible for another person's criminal act of homicide. The right to bear arms as a whole is not responsible for all gun homicide. You can't make a direct causal link there, even though you may want to try. The criminal is responsible and culpable for the crime, not the tool.



I think even the casual observer of this thread will know that I take more than a "one-liner" interest in responses to posts. I've probably posted more data, graphs, and links than any other poster ITT. But feel free to take your cheap shots.

It isn't a similar scenario, at all. Your failure to recognize it isn't surprising. Gun violence and auto accidents are not similar scenarios. It's weird that you think the opposite is true.

You are correct, one person's ownership etc...However, once again, the argument is about the policy. It has enabled a culture of gun violence tolerance that is damn near criminal, no matter how much you wish to ignore it...in favor of your right to bear arms.

[Svifnymr]

It's not equitable because it's not equitable.

So... "because I said so"...

Driving takes demonstrated proficiency and knowledge. This changes with the type of vehicele you wish to operate. It is a privilege, not a right, and therefore it is subjected to different levels of requirements. Yet, gun ownership isn't.

Gun ownership has many laws affecting it, you can be a felon and drive a car. If you kill someone with a car, they'll take away your right to own a gun, not a car...

I don't begrudge you the right for you to bear arms and defend yourself. That doesn't change that the obsession with guns in this country has enabled a culture that tolerates its consequences way more than it should.

But, you DO begrudge the right. It's right there! This "obsession" with guns as you label it is not an obsession with guns. The "gun culture" is a part of many other facets of society. Why not ban rap music or violent video games? Why not restrict the first amendment in the way the second is already restricted?

The "tolerance of consequences" thing is just anti-gun pandering. You want to legislate guns while ignoring other sources of danger. If you want to pass a nanny state, then by all means ban pools, require all cars to have a breathalyzer lockout, require a license to purchase any harmful chemicals, along with a class to make sure you understand how they work. Meh, forget the breathalyzer, let's just remove private transportation entirely in favor of public transportation, it's better for the environment and a lot cheaper for "society".

Until that time, realize that every hindrance you inflict on a free person because of the actions of a criminal, needs to be balanced by the impact it will actually carry, rather than just arbitrarily throwing restrictions on others that don't affect you.

[NYC17]

So... "because I said so"...

Gun ownership has many laws affecting it, you can be a felon and drive a car. If you kill someone with a car, they'll take away your right to own a gun, not a car...


But, you DO begrudge the right. It's right there! This "obsession" with guns as you label it is not an obsession with guns. The "gun culture" is a part of many other facets of society. Why not ban rap music or violent video games? Why not restrict the first amendment in the way the second is already restricted?

The "tolerance of consequences" thing is just anti-gun pandering. You want to legislate guns while ignoring other sources of danger. If you want to pass a nanny state, then by all means ban pools, require all cars to have a breathalyzer lockout, require a license to purchase any harmful chemicals, along with a class to make sure you understand how they work. Meh, forget the breathalyzer, let's just remove private transportation entirely in favor of public transportation, it's better for the environment and a lot cheaper for "society".

Until that time, realize that every hindrance you inflict on a free person because of the actions of a criminal, needs to be balanced by the impact it will actually carry, rather than just arbitrarily throwing restrictions on others that don't affect you.

Not because I said so, I even followed it up with a reason in which you tried to refute, but failed miserably. He was comparing auto ACCIDENTS with gun violence. it isn't equitable. There's really not much else to say about it.

I don't begrudge the right. I begrudge the idea of an absolute right. There's a difference, and as such, the rest of your diatribe does not hold any relevance to the discussion. There is an obsession with gun ownership in this country. If you don't like the term, I don't care. When you have people who bitch and moan about not being able to "collect" old military grade weapons, claim guns can be used to cut down trees in a pathetic attempt to demonstrate that they have utility, and generally believe guns are the end-all-be-all of "tyranny" defense, it's an obsession. Deal with that reality.

You seem to not understand the tolerance of consequence "thing", as evidence by your laughable comparisons, so until you do, we'll leave that on hold.

[THE Bigzoman]

The policy as whole perpetuates the situation in which people feel their right to bear arms supersedes the right of someone not to be killed by a firearm. You can personalize it all you want, but the point I'm making is on the policy as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not particularly funny, it's just the reality of the situation. The right to bear arms has perpetuated a culture of tolerance of guns, and the consequences that come with them, to an absurd degree. Twenty kids killed by a person with a gun? Sad, but "I have a right to bear arms, the Constitution says so!".

That's always the argument, and that's just the way it goes.

To pin the right to bear arms as the sole creator of american gun culture is complete and utter bullshit.

The "gun culture" in this country has several sources. Particularly in the glorification of gun violence in movies, video games, and other media sources.

[Svifnymr]

Not because I said so, I even followed it up with a reason in which you tried to refute, but failed miserably. He was comparing auto ACCIDENTS with gun violence. it isn't equitable. There's really not much else to say about it.

Auto deaths, which for the most part are accidents, and which could be avoided with fewer cars and more restrictions on cars.
And no, you didn't follow up with reasons, you followed up by highlighting specific instances with no attempt to look at the overall comparison. You once again resort to saying someone failed or something isn't equitable because you say so. And "there's really not much else to say about it", doesn't stop you from continuing to mishandle the comparisons on any level that would be used in real discussion.

I don't begrudge the right. I begrudge the idea of an absolute right.

There is no absolute right to gun ownership, you're creating this arbitrary distinction to try to sugar coat your opinion to the thread. If you want to reduce the number of guns for some perceived trickle down effect, then you begrudge the right in any sense.

There's a difference, and as such, the rest of your diatribe does not hold any relevance to the discussion. There is an obsession with gun ownership in this country. If you don't like the term, I don't care. When you have people who bitch and moan about not being able to "collect" old military grade weapons, claim guns can be used to cut down trees in a pathetic attempt to demonstrate that they have utility, and generally believe guns are the end-all-be-all of "tyranny" defense, it's an obsession. Deal with that reality.

Nope, the fact someone can be passionate about something does not make it an obsession. The fact that old military weapons were recently targeted when there is no reason to restrict them otherwise is a perfect example of the thread. Just go after things in an attempt to reduce guns because at some point it may possibly reduce crime guns and that'll maybe help someone sooner or later, though not sooner.

The fact that you ignore 1000+ pages of the thread and still make such claims speaks to the point that you don't really care what the facts are, you just want to paint pro-gun-rights folks in the worst light possible so it's easier to justify restricting them.

You seem to not understand the tolerance of consequence "thing", as evidence by your laughable comparisons, so until you do, we'll leave that on hold.

I understand that you want to ignore the numbers and paint pro-gun-rights folks as tolerating these murders and stuff to preserve some obsession, when in fact it's millions of gun owners wishing not to see their rights restricted more because of the actions of a tiny number of criminals that were criminals before they ever touched a gun in most cases. If you are willing to pass restrictions to save any death from occurring, there are more efficient means to do so, separate or in addition to each other. Unless you think there is an actual USE for pools?

But no, the usual, comparisons are fine unless they don't agree with your view, in which case they're not equitable or laughable or whatever other derogatory term you choose to use rather than address the actual numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

To pin the right to bear arms as the sole creator of american gun culture is complete and utter bullshit.

The "gun culture" in this country has several sources. Particularly in the glorification of gun violence in movies, video games, and other media sources.

It also serves to lump a lot of variety into this image of GTA based "gun culture". Ignore that ranchers use guns, ignore that lawyers/ doctors collect guns, paint everybody as someone trying to be a thug or idiot, because the person themselves does not interact with folks that participate. It's like lumping everyone with a motorcycle into "biker gangs" to restrict motorcycles.