The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[TheMeInTeam]

I dunno. Depends upon from where. Asylum always seemed expressly for people getting hosed on convictions and social oppression and whatnot.

Those aren't USUALLY convictions of serious crime (to clarify: things like murder, rape, and assault). It's pretty rare that someone seeking asylum is seeking it after a conviction of one of those.

This is also not the bulk of immigration of course.

We always need to distinguish between immigration and refugees. Some people are desperate to get us to conflate them.

To be fair, migrants claiming asylum is something that happens. The people who really don't need this conflation happening are actual refugees. But where that line gets drawn is a fun political game to play and so it won't stop.

 

[El_Machinae]

Absolutely. Everybody will always try to game every system. But don't let conflation of the two concepts happen wherever you have a voice.

 

[Crezth]

If drug dealers did not have a constitutional right to arms, does anybody think they wouldn't have guns anyway? Criminals don't obey the law. And big drug dealers have lots of money. I think the war on drug argument is silly. (as an aside, whenever .gov declares a "war on <fill in the blank>" it always seems to make the problem worse, or creates new problems worse than the original w/o really solving the original)

If guns are outlawed and somehow magically disappear, the police will still have their guns, and career criminals will have guns, and both will prey on the defenseless.

Why do you think laws are passed? To make something illegal. Part of making guns contraband is introducing the legal framework necessary for state authorities to intervene in cases where potentially dangerous people have highly dangerous weapons. It’s the same reason murder is illegal: yes, it still happens, but you can be charged for it.

So the question then becomes would you rather keep your deadly machines, or try to empower law enforcement to take them away from criminals? Maybe you think the police shouldn’t have that much power over you - I tend to agree for the reason American police are killer pigs. But that being the case - trading off public safety for... public safety - one has to wonder if the reason Americans want to keep guns is because Americans crave murder after all.

 

[zxcvbob]

So the question then becomes would you rather keep your deadly machines, or try to empower law enforcement to take them away from criminals?

I would rather keep my deadly machines, wouldn't you?

You are setting up a false dichotomy; if the only thing the dangerous criminals are doing that's illegal is possessing firearms (even lots of firearms), what's the justification for busting them? It's because the state wants a monopoly on the means to deadly force. If you wanna arrest drug dealers, arrest them for dealing drugs, or extortion, or murder, or some other real crime; not a made-up crime.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think we wanted to arrest drug dealers. Then other people wanted to make it as easy as possible for drug dealers to get (illegal) guns.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Why do you think laws are passed? To make something illegal. Part of making guns contraband is introducing the legal framework necessary for state authorities to intervene in cases where potentially dangerous people have highly dangerous weapons. It’s the same reason murder is illegal: yes, it still happens, but you can be charged for it.

There are already laws/policies to intercept dangerous people with weapons. Many of the recent high profile mass shootings wouldn't have happened if people other than the shooter had followed the established laws/procedures.

There's no point in making something illegal "more illegal" if it's not going to be enforced.

But that being the case - trading off public safety for... public safety - one has to wonder if the reason Americans want to keep guns is because Americans crave murder after all.

Forcibly disarming citizens does not have a strong history of desirable outcomes in the countries where it has happened. It's disingenuous to claim that preferring to avoid such an outcome is "craving murder".

 

[Estebonrober]

There are already laws/policies to intercept dangerous people with weapons. Many of the recent high profile mass shootings wouldn't have happened if people other than the shooter had followed the established laws/procedures.

There's no point in making something illegal "more illegal" if it's not going to be enforced.



Forcibly disarming citizens does not have a strong history of desirable outcomes in the countries where it has happened. It's disingenuous to claim that preferring to avoid such an outcome is "craving murder".

Should be stated here, that american GOP and conservatives generally refuse to enforce laws and regulation by design. No one serious is talking about forcibly taking weapons away.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Should be stated here, that american GOP and conservatives generally refuse to enforce laws and regulation by design. No one serious is talking about forcibly taking weapons away.

Actually, one of the democratic candidates said exactly that, explicitly.

 

[Estebonrober]

Actually, one of the democratic candidates said exactly that, explicitly.

Yea but he isn't seriously a presidential candidate that ship sailed. When he starts polling in the double digits come back to me.

 

[Berzerker]

look at those 2 holes in the ground, must have been some goalposts there

 

[Broken_Erika]

look at those 2 holes in the ground, must have been some goalposts there

That's just gophers.

 

[Farm Boy]

Spoiler kablooey! :

 

[EgonSpengler]

So Max Boot, a columnist for The Washington Post, has gotten me thinking more about a mandatory gun buyback program. He approves of Beto O'Rourke opening the "Overton Window" on guns, which I agree with. The gun lobby greatest successes in recent decades have been in controlling the discussion (clamping down on research into gun violence, most notably). Booth cites a recent poll that found overwhelming support (almost 90% - even self-described Republicans and gun owners) for "Red Flag" laws and for expanding background checks to include private sales and gun shows. The same poll, surprisingly, found that 31% of Republicans support a mandatory buyback of "assault" guns. Booth notes the success of Australia's mandatory gun buyback program, but didn't attempt to answer the question of whether or how Americans are anything like Australians, in regards to guns.

 

[Socrates99]

At this point I'd be happy with mandatory background checks which polls with massive approval. Then the GoP, who frequently blames mental health, should allow/assist Democrats to expand funding for mental health programs and allow the CDC to research gun violence instead of blocking it. That way we can find decent reforms without restricting "good guys" much.

Oh? That'll never happen? Maybe rightwing voters should put the pressure on before there's more Betos.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What are "assault guns", and how are they meaningfully distinguished from guns in general, any of which can be used to commit assault?

 

[Socrates99]

What are "assault guns", and how are they meaningfully distinguished from guns in general, any of which can be used to commit assault?

Honestly, I can't figure it out either. There are plenty of wooden stock rifle models with much more deadly capacity than the "scary looking" ARs. I assume they mostly mean banning the ones that were already banned in the ban that sunset.

 

[Commodore]

Should be stated here, that american GOP and conservatives generally refuse to enforce laws and regulation by design. No one serious is talking about forcibly taking weapons away.

Except they are talking about it. At the last debate, all the candidates except Biden agreed with the idea of mandatory buyback. Now you are going to say that isn't forcible confiscation, but in reality it is. Why? Well if it's a mandatory buyback, what do you think the government is going to do to those who refuse to comply? They are going to send SWAT teams to their home to kick in their doors in the middle of the night to take their guns.

Also Red Flag laws are essentially back door gun confiscation since it takes away your right to due process and forces you to prove your innocence before being allowed to have your property back. And most of these laws are written in a way that allows anyone to anonymously report you as a threat without having to provide any proof and the cops just come and take your guns. Don't say it doesn't happen either, because if you actually bother to look, you'll find plenty of stories in which exactly that has happened in states with Red Flag laws.

Red Flag laws are completely unconstitutional even if we didn't have the 2nd Amendment. Such laws are a clear violation of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Something tells me you don't really care about that though.

 

[EgonSpengler]

What are "assault guns", and how are they meaningfully distinguished from guns in general, any of which can be used to commit assault?

Right, that's part of the problem. When I see the term "assault gun", this is the first thing that I think of:

Spoiler :

Honestly, I can't figure it out either. There are plenty of wooden stock rifle models with much more deadly capacity than the "scary looking" ARs. I assume they mostly mean banning the ones that were already banned in the ban that sunset.

Yeah, that's probably what most people are thinking of. Things like AR-15s and AK47s.

 

[Estebonrober]

Except they are talking about it. At the last debate, all the candidates except Biden agreed with the idea of mandatory buyback. Now you are going to say that isn't forcible confiscation, but in reality it is. Why? Well if it's a mandatory buyback, what do you think the government is going to do to those who refuse to comply? They are going to send SWAT teams to their home to kick in their doors in the middle of the night to take their guns.

Also Red Flag laws are essentially back door gun confiscation since it takes away your right to due process and forces you to prove your innocence before being allowed to have your property back. And most of these laws are written in a way that allows anyone to anonymously report you as a threat without having to provide any proof and the cops just come and take your guns. Don't say it doesn't happen either, because if you actually bother to look, you'll find plenty of stories in which exactly that has happened in states with Red Flag laws.

Red Flag laws are completely unconstitutional even if we didn't have the 2nd Amendment. Such laws are a clear violation of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Something tells me you don't really care about that though.

I only heard that Beto supported mandatory buyback. I don't watch TV though so maybe it just wasn't mentioned in the articles I read. I have the exact same concerns about red flag laws that you have actually. I consider it a bad way to manage the problem and fraught with difficult choices made by imperfect people.

 

[El_Machinae]

What are "assault guns", and how are they meaningfully distinguished from guns in general, any of which can be used to commit assault?

This is why Canadian regulations use such features as calibre, barrel length, overall gun length, and magazine capacity. Among other things.

It allows you to identify things that you think increase the public danger unnecessarily, and then regulate around them.