Gun Control discussion

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, TerraPrime said:

Sandy Hook was a turning point for me. As I watched in horror the emergence of the consensus that the deaths of a couple dozens of grade schoolers do not merit an increase in regulating guns, I finally accepted that the 2A is indeed, as you said, an integral and indestructible part of being American. 

To be honest, I'm pretty sure it was you who opened my eyes on this.  I favored gun control and was horrified about Sandy Hook.  But I still thought the right to bear arms was something important.  You made a perfectly logical argument about dead children and it was like a lightbulb went off.  I'm not all that bright, so it's hard for me to understand why that light bulb isn't going off for everyone else when it's not a complicated concept.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 Tell us how there aren't regulations on drivers needing to be insured.  

I think that's a potentially interesting angle to this issue. Every one of your guns needs to be insured against the potential medical cost and perhaps even legal liability cost that it is likely to incur. If guns and cars are equivalent (which many pro-gun folks like to argue) then surely Mother Cocanuts wouldn't have any problem carrying gun insurance.

[Ice Queen]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’ve always argued that certain handguns, bolt action rifles and traditional shotguns should be legal and purchasable by any citizen, so long as they pass a background check and a psych evaluation and then register the firearms as well as the bullets they buy (to track spikes in volume). If you want anything beyond that, you should have to be a veteran and pass incredibly strict rules and regulations and even then, we should limit what you can buy to anything that cannot be made into an automatic rifle. And everyone who ones a firearm should have to have an annual or biennial psych evaluation. It’s far from a perfect solution, but I think it would make things better.

And that gets to the elephant in the room, in that would it even be possible? They type of people who stock up on the firearms you and I would like to ban overlap heavily with the people who mistrust the government and thus buy firearms to defend themselves from what they view as tyranny. I cannot not imagine a scenario in which they’d willingly give up their firearms, even if you offered them 50 times the value of the firearm in cash.

Here's the thing they don't seem to understand. Their puny little guns wouldn't put a dent in military equipment should the government decide to declare war on its own citizens. They're delusional enough to think they would be among the heroes who saved us from tyranny and oppression. 

[Ice Queen]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think that's a potentially interesting angle to this issue. Every one of your guns needs to be insured against the potential medical cost and perhaps even legal liability cost that it is likely to incur. If guns and cars are equivalent (which many pro-gun folks like to argue) then surely Mother Cocanuts wouldn't have any problem carrying gun insurance.

Completely agree with this, and I'll go one further. You car insurance rates in many cases are tied to your credit rating. Make it the same for gun insurance. I'd be willing to bet that for many of them, their credit is so poor they'd be unable to afford the insurance. 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think that's a potentially interesting angle to this issue. Every one of your guns needs to be insured against the potential medical cost and perhaps even legal liability cost that it is likely to incur. If guns and cars are equivalent (which many pro-gun folks like to argue) then surely Mother Cocanuts wouldn't have any problem carrying gun insurance.

I imagine a post-2A world to be like that.  Where the purchase and use of guns are just as much if not more regulated than vehicles, maybe even regulated in the same way.  It would make sense to need to carry a significant insurance policy for any accidents resulting from your gun.  It would create a different sort of mindset for people who have guns, that this is a huge deal that requires a lot of responsibility and that can be very dangerous.  I'm guessing gun accidents that occur in the home might currently be covered under homeowners insurance?  But probably nothing for outside the home.

[King Ned Stark]

There are an estimated 300 million firearms in circulation in the United States.  In all likelihood, the only firearms that are registered are the ones on the NFA list; full-auto, along with SBR's and SBS's.  I'd be surprised if the NFA items amounted to more than 10%, and that's probably exceptionally high.  The other 290 million guns are not on any list, and no one knows who has what and how many.  How does anyone propose to find those guns, presuming that some people (especially the criminal element) do not voluntarily turn them over?  Illegal search and seizure?

Plus, the constitution, and the fact that I dislike punishing everyone for the actions of the very few.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Completely agree with this, and I'll go one further. You car insurance rates in many cases are tied to your credit rating. Make it the same for gun insurance. I'd be willing to bet that for many of them, their credit is so poor they'd be unable to afford the insurance. 

I wouldn't be opposed to tying insurance rates for guns to a whole slew of things, but it does bother me tying it to credit rating.  What if it's a poor family who lives in a rural area and needs to rely on hunting for sustenance?  Poor families run into the same troubles when they try to acquire a vehicle in order to help them get a better job, only to find out they can't afford the insurance solely due to a poor credit rating, which they can't fix because they can't get a better job and so on.

[King Ned Stark]

Nearly 70% of gun owners claim to own one for self defense/home protection, not to fight tyranny.

[TerraPrime]

5 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

 

Plus, the constitution, and the fact that I dislike punishing everyone for the actions of the very few.

 

 

Conservatives: We shouldn't restrict guns because it punishes others for the actions of a few. 

 

Also Conservatives: We need to ban immigration and visitation of citizens from certain countries so we can protect ourselves from terrorist actions. 

[King Ned Stark]

8 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Assume that is true.  What is your basis for assuming that some portion of the military will not join forces with the citizenry?  After all, a nation's military force is ideally composed of its citizenry.  Assuming that might happen, then an armed citizenry might tip the balance against tyranny.

That, and the military is sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[King Ned Stark]

3 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

 

Conservatives: We shouldn't restrict guns because it punishes others for the actions of a few. 

 

Also Conservatives: We need to ban immigration and visitation of citizens from certain countries so we can protect ourselves from terrorist actions. 

That's not how I think.

[Ice Queen]

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

Assume that is true.  What is your basis for assuming that some portion of the military will not join forces with the citizenry?  After all, a nation's military force is ideally composed of its citizenry.  Assuming that might happen, then an armed citizenry might tip the balance against tyranny.

Some may, but they're soldiers. They will follow orders or they will be killed. That's the way it is. There are plenty who see civilians as The Enemy as it is and many of them are in our police forces right now. The trick is to deploy the military in such a way that the citizens welcome it, and the soldiers believe they're acting in the citizens' best interest. Once the military is in the streets, they probably wouldn't question why they were there. 

It really wouldn't be that difficult and there are plenty of examples to choose from. We see it all the time. Ferguson is a perfect example. Why didn't those national guardsmen and law enforcement disobey their orders and join the protesters? Because the protesters were painted as "the bad guys", and the guardsmen felt justified in their actions. It would be the same thing if and when the government unleashed the full might of the US armed forces for real. 

[Mother Cocanuts]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I have an easier task for you. How about you tell us how they aren't regulated?

No thanks. I'm more interested in your argument which suggests that vehicles are heavily regulated.

15 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Tell us how there are safety standards to which manufacturers must adhere.  Tell us how there aren't any laws on the books that regulate things like speed, seatbelt and car seat usage, even number of passengers, etc.  Tell us how anyone can drive, even toddlers and how there aren't any laws and restrictions on licensing.  Tell us how there aren't regulations on drivers needing to be insured.  And also how all of these regulations aren't enforced through the law with applicable penalties for failure to meet these regulations.  

Oh, I see what you did here. Oh, you're a clever one. But apparently you don't know how to read because I've already mentioned age based restrictions, registration, and insurance. But none of the regulations actually speak to how first acquiring a car is affected heavily, and second, reducing death is possible since half of all deaths are still car accidents. I think the shit is in your hand--it'll be your choice whether you want to eat it though.

[Ice Queen]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I wouldn't be opposed to tying insurance rates for guns to a whole slew of things, but it does bother me tying it to credit rating.  What if it's a poor family who lives in a rural area and needs to rely on hunting for sustenance?  Poor families run into the same troubles when they try to acquire a vehicle in order to help them get a better job, only to find out they can't afford the insurance solely due to a poor credit rating, which they can't fix because they can't get a better job and so on.

I was thinking more for assault rifles and such, but you are right. Hunting for food is something that many families rely on, or they starve. (Which is why we can't ever have a total ban.) 

I need to rethink that. Thanks for pointing it out! 

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

No thanks. I'm more interested in your argument which suggests that vehicles are heavily regulated.

Oh, I see what you did here. Oh, you're a clever one. But apparently you don't know how to read because I've already mentioned age based restrictions, registration, and insurance. But none of the regulations actually speak to how first acquiring a car is affected heavily, and second, reducing death is possible since half of all deaths are still car accidents. I think the shit is in your hand--it'll be your choice whether you want to eat it though.

Ah, so basically you have no response and can't provide any support for whatever illogical bullshit you're trying to sell.  It might easier if you just start from there.  No shame in being honest about your abilities.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

 

Folks. Let's do less snark, and more discussion. 

Thank you. 

 

[/mod hat] 

[Meimou]

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

As much as this conversation needs to be had, I always wonder what's the point.  It's black and white to me.  Either people are ok with tens of thousands dying from guns every year, or they aren't.  Either they are ok with gunmen mowing down kindergartners, or they aren't.  

People rational about the gun control debate don't see it as "ok with people dying" or "not ok with people dying." How many committed suicide? How many deaths were self defense? You don't know, you don't care, after all, it's black or white.

Those on the side of being ok with this will almost never be capable of having a logical gun control discussion.  

You are the last person to evoke logic. You just implied that those of us who are pro 2A are heartless monsters.

 

 

[Mother Cocanuts]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Ah, so basically you have no response

I did respond. You literally quoted that response. Seriously?

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

can't provide any support for whatever illogical bullshit you're trying to sell. 

But I have. I'm the only person who's made reference to actual statistics. All you've done is state that I'm illogical, and should eat shit and attempt to defer the burden of supporting your argument to me. I'm not the one pedaling bullshit.

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 No shame in being honest about your abilities.

You should keep that in mind. And as I don't imagine this getting any better, I'll be ignoring you, now.

[TerraPrime]

17 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

That's not how I think.

That's fair. 

I said "Conservatives," as a group, not you specifically. But I did use your quote as inspiration. 

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, Meimou said:

 

People rational about the gun control debate don't see it as "ok with people dying" or "not ok with people dying." How many committed suicide? How many deaths were self defense? You don't know, you don't care, after all, it's black or white.

I'm sorry, do you think it's ok that people are dead if they died by suicide?  Or by 'self defense'?  I'm not, because I care.  It's black and white.  You're either ok with the deaths of people by guns, or you aren't.

Quote

You are the last person to evoke logic. You just implied that those of us who are pro 2A are heartless monsters.

Please describe the problem with the logic here.  If you're ok with dead children as part of a compromise to keep 2A, then how is this not evil?