Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

It will certainly drop some.

Of course it will drop some. But I stated "And gun control will not reduce production, manufacturing, sport, and hunting, to zero either." To which you responded, "it certainly will," then added some nonsense about a de facto ban.

[Tinykong]

there we go again, moving from firearm violence to all crimes

Were you not implying that gun manufacturer's are partially responsible for the net loss to society?

[Mayhem]

Were you not implying that gun manufacturer's are partially responsible for the net loss to society?

no i wasn´t, i´m not making gun manufacturer´s responsible for actions they have no control over

[Tinykong]

Of course it will drop some. But I stated "And gun control will not reduce production, manufacturing, sport, and hunting, to zero either." To which you responded, "it certainly will,"

No shit? Probably why I said "some" when you asked for clarity. People do make typing mistakes when posting from cell phones.

Kind of like saying millions when you mean billions.

then added some nonsense about a de facto ban.

I know, your de facto ban is nonsense. Glad you realize that.

[TZucchini]

No shit? Probably why I said "some" when you asked for clarity. People do make typing mistakes when posting from cell phones.

Kind of like saying millions when you mean billions.

OK, great. Just wanted to clarify. So then you're point that "We're not that far off, considering the $170B number that is often cited won't be reduced to zero by gun control," is really a moot point, since positive economic impact won't be reduced to zero either.

You're still far off. The point still stands. The current state of firearm ownership is a net negative to society.

- - - Updated - - -

I would also like lockedout to reconcile this point:

"We use random-digit-dial telephone survey data" I don't take these seriously sorry.

Yet earlier in this thread you were touting this poll:

Support for gun rights is higher than it’s been in decades, according to the latest data from the Pew Research Center that signals a stunning turnaround in how Americans feel about the issue just two years after the Newtown school shooting.

And how did Pew obtain those results?

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews

So lockedout, do you only take those surveys seriously when they support your worldview? You've been called out for blatant confirmation bias, and I'd like you to address this point. Seems like you've just disappeared.

[Stormdash]

The point still stands. The current state of firearm ownership is a net negative to society.

And it's still not a meter by which the validity of an individual right is measured. There never really has been an individual right protected under the law that isn't understood to have some arguable "cost" to society. Do you know why? Because things that are super wonderful net benefits to society in all contexts do not need to be protected against interference by the state.

[Tinykong]

OK, great. Just wanted to clarify. So then you're point that "We're not that far off, considering the $170B number that is often cited won't be reduced to zero by gun control," is really a moot point, since positive economic impact won't be reduced to zero either.

You're still far off.

It will be reduced, and we don't know how much. We also don't know how much gun control will reduce that $170B number, there even could be an increase.

To say it is "far off" is being deliberately dishonest. We simply don't know how far off it is, and manufacturing/employment/sales is significant enough to say that it could be close.

The point still stands. The current state of firearm ownership is a net negative to society.

This is nothing more than an opinion. You haven't done a thorough enough analysis of all the factors that contribute to the "net" to claim this.

[Mayhem]

And it's still not a meter by which the validity of an individual right is measured. There never really has been an individual right protected under the law that isn't understood to have some arguable "cost" to society. Do you know why? Because things that are super wonderful net benefits to society in all contexts do not need to be protected against interference by the state.

comparable costs or just "cost"? any examples, because you made a rather vague statement

[Stormdash]

comparable costs or just "cost"? any examples, because you made a rather vague statement

Does it matter? They aren't fungible; there is no going exchange rate between "net benefit to society" and "legitimacy of individual right", there is just a basic understanding of which has first "dibs" on status on the law and the rest is pretty much case by case. In the US, at least, individual rights have first dibs. Like the right to print information or speak ideas that may provoke civil unrest or widespread political dissent; the right to go free even if you actually committed a heinous crime but the criminal justice system did not act within its limits, and, yes, the right to own or carry a firearm for sport or self-defense even though other people with that right may be morons or bad actors.

[Mayhem]

Does it matter? They aren't fungible; there is no going exchange rate between "net benefit to society" and "legitimacy of individual right", there is just a basic understanding of which has first "dibs" on status on the law and the rest is pretty much case by case. In the US, at least, individual rights have first dibs. Like the right to print information or speak ideas that may provoke civil unrest or widespread political dissent; the right to go free even if you actually committed a heinous crime but the criminal justice system did not act within its limits, and, yes, the right to own or carry a firearm for sport or self-defense even though other people with that right may be morons or bad actors.

ok, so it´s the, "we can´t amend the constituation, people 200 years ago knew the future and made politics that last forever"-argument

[Ghostpanther]

ok, so it´s the, "we can´t amend the constituation, people 200 years ago knew the future and made politics that last forever"-argument

Or better yet, there is no need to amend the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

[Mayhem]

Or better yet, there is no need to amend the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

if it´s more harmful than helpful to keep the right as it is, yes then there is a need

[TITAN308]

if it´s more harmful than helpful to keep the right as it is, yes then there is a need

Thankfully the founding fathers were smarter than you. I dare say way smarter than anyone posting in this thread, myself included.

Seriously. You are a dumbass compared to our founding fathers. I'm a dumbass compared to them. Get over it.

/nelson haha

You got your chance from 1994 to 2004 and blew it. Heavy regulations and outright bans did nothing under the Clinton AWB. Thats why it wasn't renewed.

Your side had 10 years. 10 entire years to show some sort of blip on the radar and YOU blew it. You failed. Game over. Had your spot light for 10 years and it showed the world that you CONTROL FREAKS cannot make people safer.

[Mayhem]

Thankfully the founding fathers were smarter than you. I dare say way smarter than anyone posting in this thread, myself included.

/nelson haha

different times, i´m not going to preach stuff people long ago said without looking into what we´ve learned since then

the earth is round, slaves are people too, electricity isn´t witchcraft

i´d say they couldn´t possibly imagine everything that happened after them

[Tinykong]

if it´s more harmful than helpful to keep the right as it is, yes then there is a need

Does the Constitutional right to bear arms extend to criminals, as well?

Or, are you really just asking for stiffer regulations, with no need to change the Constitution.

[Stormdash]

ok, so it´s the, "we can´t amend the constituation, people 200 years ago knew the future and made politics that last forever"-argument

Where did I say you can't amend it? Such spurious bullshit! You are free to try. You won't succeed, of course, because your position on the issue doesn't enjoy sufficient popular support (which is why it doesn't deserve to be the law of the land). But you can't ignore the Constitution outright, you can't judicially nullify it by convincing some lunatic fringe jurists to declare that the "right to keep and bear arms" refers neither to the keeping nor bearing of any arms. It doesn't have an expiration date.

[TITAN308]

Does the Constitutional right to bear arms extend to criminals, as well?

Or, are you really just asking for stiffer regulations, with no need to change the Constitution.

Didn't you know? Regulating things based on criminals is the hipster thing to do now a days. #guncontrolbecuzbadguyz

[Stormdash]

if it´s more harmful than helpful to keep the right as it is, yes then there is a need

Then go convince 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures, or conventions in 3/4ths of the states. Or if you like, convince 2/3rds of the states to call for a convention to propose amendments, propose that one, and again convince 3/4ths of the state legislatures or conventions in the states to ratify it.

And if your argument isn't compelling enough to do that, it must not be worth embodying in the law.

[Tinykong]

Didn't you know? Regulating things based on criminals is the hipster thing to do now a days. #guncontrolbecuzbadguyz

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that gun control advocates aren't willing to find common ground. The moment anyone agrees with them, they demand more.

[TITAN308]

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that gun control advocates aren't willing to find common ground. The moment anyone agrees with them, they demand more.

They had 10 years under the Clinton AWB to prove their way was the right way and they failed.

I don't see why we should give them any more.