Gun Control discussion

[Dr. Pepper]

11 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Its similar to the car to gun comparison. If you were to give most gun owners the option of turning over their guns to save 59 lives, or even 1, I dare say most would take it immediately.  But that's not what is being prosposed here, taking John Doe's gun/s doesn't guarantee that Paddock wouldn't have acquired his weapons anyway.  They want their guns for home defense.

It's not similar to the car comparison at all.  I don't even know how a sane person can try to compare the two.

But yeah, I agree, a buyback program would not work in the US.  A strong system gun control and regulation would not work.  None of this works because guns are so a part of American identity, to the point that we become illogical and think that guns are suitable items for home defense.  You'll not find me claiming that any of these things would work in the US because our love affair with 2A prevents it.  Get rid of 2A, wait a generation or two, then things would be different.  We know it can be different.  We have the Australia example to look to.  

[Ice Queen]

16 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Its similar to the car to gun comparison. If you were to give most gun owners the option of turning over their guns to save 59 lives, or even 1, I dare say most would take it immediately.  But that's not what is being prosposed here, taking John Doe's gun/s doesn't guarantee that Paddock wouldn't have acquired his weapons anyway.  They want their guns for home defense.

How many can you shoot at one time? There is simply NO reason for anyone to own an entire arsenal of weapons. None, zero, zip. 

Oh, we can add practical gun licensing tests to the list. Make them go to the firing range and demonstrate that they can handle a gun, know how to clean and store it properly, and can actually hit what they're shooting at. 

[Mother Cocanuts]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Insurance for starters. You cool with that?

No. It'd be a waste of money.

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Guns are like cars, right?

Don't tell me that you that you actually believe that guns are like cars? You see, when one uses an analogy, it's an attempt to illustrate a point using similar contexts. It doesn't mean that cars and guns are actually similar.

[Ice Queen]

1 minute ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

No. It'd be a waste of money.

Don't tell me that you that you actually believe that guns are like cars? You see, when one uses an analogy, it's an attempt to illustrate a point using similar contexts. It doesn't mean that cars and guns are actually similar.

You're the one who used cars as an analogy, so...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

There are 27 amendments to the Constitution.  The 14th Amendment (guaranteeing equal rights regardless of skin color), dates back 149 years to 1868.  The most recent amendment passed in 1992. So the current version of the Constitution is only 25 years old.  Still have problems it?  Simple.  Pass another Amendment.

Exactly.  Which is why I completely oppose those losers who think the Constitution should be ignored whenever it suits those who want to ignore it.    If we don't respect the Consitution, then its checks and balances cannot protect us.

So pass another Amendment.

Anyone who understands the amendment process and the current political climate knows that it’s totally impossible to address gun regulations through that route. It would have to be done via the Congress and then upheld by the courts.

Also, arguing that the Constitution is only 25 years old is a joke, and that’s not how originalists, for the most part, interpret it. But you already knew all of this….

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

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. 

Most of them understand that, hence why they argue that they have a right to and need bigger and more dangerous weapons.

53 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

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

That stat alone is meaningless. So let’s add some more. A little more than 1/3 of U.S. households have a firearm in them. A little less than ¼ of Americans say they personally own a firearm. And most importantly, less than 5% of Americans own a majority of the firearms in this country. And the latter stat is the key one, since those are the people most likely to own a firearm for the purposes of fighting of a tyrannical government.

[Mother Cocanuts]

Just now, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

You're the one who used cars as an analogy, so...

I know. I just said that.

[TerraPrime]

13 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Obviously it is. Cars serve another purpose. They are not designed to kill people. Guns are. If that seems semantic to you, I think that's a pretty important threshold, idea wise.

I can see that you think it's an important distinction. 

However, it's just as valid to say that guns are designed to fire projectiles, instead of the very prejudicial framing of guns being designed to kill people. Are bows designed to kill people, too? 

I think it's okay to say that some guns are designed for combat and those are indeed designed to kill. Many guns, however, are not designed for that. They are designed for hunting, for instance. Some are designed for ease of use, not for maximum damage. 

In the end, I object to this line of oppositional view because it is a definition game. You're defining yourself to victory by saying that guns are only used for killing people. That's really far from what most gun owners see their guns' purposes are. 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

For those who've missed it, the NRA has come out in favor of more regulation on devices like bump stocks that permit high rates of fire. (Though they also called for a national right-to-carry law in the same breath, as if a bunch of drunk yahoos shooting at a hotel 500 yards away would have helped anything...)

Especially given that Vegas has a right to carry openly as well as easy concealment laws. People were carrying; it was useless.

On the insurance idea: I thought of that before, but gun ownership is a right - and insurance would be simply too restrictive to that right. This is akin to a poll tax or an expensive form of ID for voting; anything that restricts rights based on poverty is not acceptable in the US. 

[Weeping Sore]

I say restrict ammo. Unlimited ammo at gun clubs / firing ranges but it has to be used there. A certain number of bullets for designated hunting firearms allowed per hunting season. Then a reasonable amount for home defense (how many bullets should be used in a home defense situation? 6? 20?)

[Ice Queen]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Most of them understand that, hence why they argue that they have a right to and need bigger and more dangerous weapons.

Up to and including nuclear weapons, most likely. 

[Relic]

11 minutes ago, Ran said:

(Though they also called for a national right-to-carry law in the same breath, as if a bunch of drunk yahoos shooting at a hotel 500 yards away would have helped anything...)

There were people packing at the concert,  I have no doubt. 

"It is legal to carry concealed or openly in a bar or restaurant, even while consuming alcohol. One cannot possess a firearm if their blood alcohol content is more than .10 BAC (NRS 202.257). It is legal to carry openly or concealed inside a casino, on the Las VegasStrip, or at the Fremont Street Experience."

 

As for the national right-to-carry isn't that a classic case of big government intervening in a single state's right to set its own laws? What say does the federal government get to have of NY decides it doesn't want open carry? 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Relic said:

As for the national right-to-carry isn't that a classic case of big government intervening in a single state's right to set its own laws? What say does the federal government get to have of NY decides it doesn't want open carry? 

Same reason that same sex marriage is legal across the land. Once enough states have a right, chances are good it's too onerous to make it not a recognized right everywhere. 

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

How many can you shoot at one time? There is simply NO reason for anyone to own an entire arsenal of weapons. None, zero, zip. 

Oh, we can add practical gun licensing tests to the list. Make them go to the firing range and demonstrate that they can handle a gun, know how to clean and store it properly, and can actually hit what they're shooting at. 

I like these ideas.  Maybe add a number of self defense simulations as well, if only to show that it's really difficult to actually defend one's self while using a gun.

[Mother Cocanuts]

7 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

I can see that you think it's an important distinction. 

However, it's just as valid to say that guns are designed to fire projectiles, instead of the very prejudicial framing of guns being designed to kill people. Are bows designed to kill people, too? 

I think it's okay to say that some guns are designed for combat and those are indeed designed to kill. Many guns, however, are not designed for that. They are designed for hunting, for instance. Some are designed for ease of use, not for maximum damage. 

In the end, I object to this line of oppositional view because it is a definition game. You're defining yourself to victory by saying that guns are only used for killing people. That's really far from what most gun owners see their guns' purposes are. 

Agreed.

[King Ned Stark]

@Crazy Cat Lady in Training & @Tywin et al., I think Kalbear said it best, right or wrong, people resist any to gun restriction because it's deemed a right. 

Tywin, you are right, guns, like wealth, is controlled by a small percentage; but I doubt those guys would hand over any weapons.

[Ice Queen]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Especially given that Vegas has a right to carry openly as well as easy concealment laws. People were carrying; it was useless.

On the insurance idea: I thought of that before, but gun ownership is a right - and insurance would be simply too restrictive to that right. This is akin to a poll tax or an expensive form of ID for voting; anything that restricts rights based on poverty is not acceptable in the US. 

Wait. We do it for health care, which is also a right, and we do it for cars and homes...but not for guns? That makes no sense. 

Waive the insurance requirement if someone has a legitimate need to hunt for food. Because the insurance would be so high, a lot of people would not be able to afford it. For the ones who could afford it, because of the risk gun ownership entails it serves to cover the medical expenses of anyone injured or killed with your weapon, and would prompt more people to report guns as lost or stolen so we can actually track these things. There would be a lot less "I lent him my gun" or "I let him borrow it". Medical expenses nationwide due to gunshots and gun injuries are astronomical. We pay for that through higher premiums, and it's high time the gun owners themselves shouldered some of that burden. Maybe they'll think twice before they shoot someone. 

[baxus]

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

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. 

This is the part I've never understood but I guess I'm a Eurocommie so I never will.

EDIT:

A couple of questions for pro-gun people of this thread:

• Do you personally own a gun and, if you do, what is the reason for that?
• What do you actually use that gun (or guns) for? Do you have some target practice, organized gun training, do you engage in tactical drills or whatever?

[Rippounet]

May I point out that the 2nd amendment was not seen as guaranteeing an individual right to firearms until 2008? The entire argument about "protection from the tyranny of government" was originally supposed to rely on state militias. That's litteraly what the 2nd amendment says.
Does it make sense to see the 2nd amendment as a guarantee against government oppression today? Perhaps, on an abstract level.
I personally prefer adhering to a social contract in which I see the government as supposed to be implementing the will of the people. If a government doesn't do that, then you need to fix politics rather than arming yourself to the teeth against it.
Arguing for guns because you fear a dictatorship is like wanting a parachute before you board a plane: it makes perfect sense on an abstract level, but when you start thinking about it, it actually gives you very little extra security and isn't really rational.

Because guns kill. The numbers are quite clear, and the relationship between the number of guns and the number of deaths by firearms isn't exactly rocket science. The same week a lunatic with a knife killed 2 women in France and a lunatic with guns killed 58 people in the US. The dots aren't exactly hard to connect.
The comparison with cars is mildly amusing at best. Yeah, cars are deadly. Which is why we've been trying to fix them: humans have strived to make transportation faster and safer since like forever.
It boils down to whether individuals should be armed with very efficient lethal weapons, whether they should have the power to kill themselves or their neighbors. Surely our species is evolved enough to develop other means of self-protection at this point.

The problem is that the US is so far down the rabbithole that a significant portion of the population doesn't even believe that there is a problem and/or will adamantly argue that there is none. Which means, in turn, that the US is a dangerous place. If I were living in the US I'd be fething terrified. I don't think I'd go as far as getting a gun, but I might consider a kevlar vest or something.

 

[zelticgar]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

I think if an Amendment were passed limiting mechanical capabilities of firearms to single action shooting you would have to work out a pretty long time frame of confiscation. Probably something like 5 years and build incentives into the system for credits, gun swaps and significant payoffs for turning in guns. Once the time clock for turning in or swapping out weapons ends I could see a scenario where you have a time period of violations. Ownership of a single illegal weapon results in a fine, multiple weapons past a certain number is a misdemeanor and use of any weapon for harm results in an additional charge and punishment above and beyond whatever crime is committed. I would propose something like this would happen over a 10 or even 20 year period. Big risks here, I could see major protests about an amendment like this but i think it is the only way. It would be a lot more dangerous to try to do it through legislation. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

21 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

No. It'd be a waste of money.

Don't tell me that you that you actually believe that guns are like cars? You see, when one uses an analogy, it's an attempt to illustrate a point using similar contexts. It doesn't mean that cars and guns are actually similar.