The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[rah]

Actually Com seems to be a responsible owner and if all owners were like him, there wouldn't be as big of a problem.
Unfortunately there are many that aren't.

But he can be a tad fanatical. But he is honest about it.

 

[Berzerker]

I honestly don't know. I'm not really all that familiar with state laws prior to the Civil War. You've definitely given me something interesting to research.

I did a little research but couldn't find anything, the first major (federal) legislation was in the 30's in response to machine guns. So that suggests the states and localities didn't do anything to provoke a lawsuit or they could and did regulate guns and their power was not disputed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Don't guns kill more in the US than cars? It's really close. You seem to claim that gun deaths are insignificant vs. others methods like knives. Which is it? If cars and guns are almost the same, then regulating them should be of similar concern. And for the record, I doubt there's ever been a person killed sitting in their living room from a knife used in an attack in front of their house. So yeah, they should be regulated more.

And if you're taking a gun in car to transport it, by definition you're taking it out in public. Now if was transported in a locked box, I'd have to reconsider.

You posted a ridiculous number that had nothing to do with our previous discussion.

Your previous example was "kids dying to guns shot by someone else". The number of deaths per year to that is tiny, which I demonstrated. Moving the goalpost to "everyone" and inflating the number 3x by including suicides was a clear break from genuine discussion.

 

[rah]

No. A true number is not ridiculous. And including suicides is legit since they make an attempt so much more successful. A failed attempt often leads to no second attempt. Fact.
And the non targeted dying is especially valid when anyone brings up knives or other methods used to kill people. (which was done in this thread)
Waving your hands and saying it's a small number is immaterial when compared with knife attacks. I'll concede that specifying kids is helpful for the emotional aspect, but doesn't change that it's another innocent bystander dying.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No. A true number is not ridiculous. And including suicides is legit since they make an attempt so much more successful. A failed attempt often leads to no second attempt. Fact.

The degrees of "gun control" required to put a serious dent in suicides vs "gun control" in the context of preventing homicides/mass shootings are not comparable. Putting 40k in a thread spawned based on yet another over-reaction to mass shooting rather than the day to day realities of gun violence is a dishonest move.

Most gun deaths are pistols, for both suicide and homicide, and it's not close. I wasn't under the impression that there was a serious case to prevent people legally owning pistols at home in this thread, which is the kind of setup you'd need to prevent someone suicidal from turning one on himself.

We'd do a lot better rooting out the causes of gangs and single parent households if preventing gun-based homicide were the real goal. If we were seriously having a discussion about preventing suicide, this thread is somewhat off-topic but there'd be no point in discussing automatic fire/bump stocks/"assault" weapons (lol) or anything of that nature because they're irrelevant to most suicides with firearms. People don't use bump stocks for that.

 

[rah]

We've been talking about gun safety and gun registrations. As far as I'm concerned, gun safety includes proper storage of guns which could lead to less availability to be used as a means for suicide so I don't see this as dishonest at all and should be considered part of the discussion.

The other thing to consider is that arbitrary products like xbox systems, knives, bricks, and power tools are less regulated than guns. Are guns sufficiently damaging to merit tighter regulation?

What I see is someone saying gun deaths are not any worse than knife deaths so why should the be regulated different. That to me is dishonest.
All I've tried to show was the differences, which includes numbers and bystanders. Pretty straightforward in my book.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We've been talking about gun safety and gun registrations. As far as I'm concerned, gun safety includes proper storage of guns which could lead to less availability to be used as a means for suicide so I don't see this as dishonest at all and should be considered part of the discussion.

Teaching people how to store guns properly is not controversial compared to telling them what guns they're allowed to own and where they can take them. Proper storage will not stop the owner of the gun from accessing it, though it might help to some extent with others getting their hands it. I don't see any downsides to proper storage, which is why I wasn't arguing with you regarding that.

What I see is someone saying gun deaths are not any worse than knife deaths so why should the be regulated different.

Might want to review the progression of the discussion if that's your conclusion.

All I've tried to show was the differences, which includes numbers and bystanders. Pretty straightforward in my book.

Citing suicide statistics (which are 2/3 of your asserted number!) in innocent bystander/accidental deaths is not "straightforward". It's silly.

 

[rah]

Teaching people how to store guns properly is not controversial compared to telling them what guns they're allowed to own and where they can take them. Proper storage will not stop the owner of the gun from accessing it, though it might help to some extent with others getting their hands it. I don't see any downsides to proper storage, which is why I wasn't arguing with you regarding that.

So there should be no problem with licensing similar to cars where you have to take training prior. 100% agree with this.

Might want to review the progression of the discussion if that's your conclusion.

You were the one that stated

The other thing to consider is that arbitrary products like xbox systems, knives, bricks, and power tools are less regulated than guns. Are guns sufficiently damaging to merit tighter regulation?

So yes, pointing out more deaths are by gun then knives seams to be the logical progression to that comment.

Citing suicide statistics (which are 2/3 of your asserted number!) in innocent bystander/accidental deaths is not "straightforward". It's silly.

I did no such thing. I gave you a total number which all of those were a part of. Do you deny that any of that number wasn't done by guns?


Again, my original intent is that guns should be treated like we do with cars since a similar number of casualties can be associated to each. (you can go back and read my posts)
I'm not saying take them away, or not let people have them.
I'm saying license the people for possession through testing after the completion of safety and use courses.
Registration of the gun like cars.
Nothing more or less.

Even though I wouldn't mind seeing every gun fire tested and the ballistics tests taken and recorded, but that's probably going to far.

What is not reasonable with this?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So yes, pointing out more deaths are by gun then knives seams to be the logical progression to that comment.

You're latching on to one particular example out of a list for illustrative purposes, and it's a strange choice at that. At least someone else rightfully called out xbox mention lol.

So yes, pointing out more deaths are by gun then knives seams to be the logical progression to that comment.

No. I did not claim guns = knives. Guns are presently more regulated than knives in the US. What would be needed to for your position to establish is that this difference is insufficient.

I did no such thing.

We were talking about accidental deaths/missed shots killing bystanders (particularly children per your example). Then you whipped out a number where over 2/3 of it necessarily isn't accidental (and has a very low chance to hit non-intended targeted) in response to this, as an attempt to make my statement look worse. I'm no-selling that.

Again, my original intent is that guns should be treated like we do with cars since a similar number of casualties can be associated to each.

They do happen, but suicide and homicide by car are both comparatively rare. These have different dynamics, use cases, and dangers so it's not obvious that they should require similar regulation.

What is not reasonable with this?

Cost, efficacy of regulation, "additional testing" like the ones you proposed creeping in to price people out of legal ownership.

It's not like at present people aren't aware that guns are dangerous, or that you're not supposed to point them at others and pull the trigger. There are exceptions, but those probably won't get you a sizable chunk of that 40k.

 

[rah]

No. I did not claim guns = knives. Guns are presently more regulated than knives in the US. What would be needed to for your position to establish is that this difference is insufficient.

By quoting deaths associated with each is sufficient in my book. Additionally homicides by guns is like 6x greater than my knives. Again sufficient.

You're latching on to one particular example out of a list for illustrative purposes, and it's a strange choice at that. At least someone else rightfully called out xbox mention lol.

I did guns because i really don't consider xboxs that dangerous And the UK and knives has been mentioned a few times.

We were talking about accidental deaths/missed shots killing bystanders (particularly children per your example). Then you whipped out a number where over 2/3 of it necessarily isn't accidental (and has a very low chance to hit non-intended targeted) in response to this, as an attempt to make my statement look worse. I'm no-selling that.

No I whipped out a number of total deaths from guns. I don't really care how, they're still deaths. If you don't care about 40K deaths a year, then I can't help you there.

They do happen, but suicide and homicide by car are both comparatively rare. These have different dynamics, use cases, and dangers so it's not obvious that they should require similar regulation.

I don't care about the differences, a death is a death. And they cause equal amounts so I feel equal care should be given due to the potential.

Cost, efficacy of regulation, "additional testing" like the ones you proposed creeping in to price people out of legal ownership.

Again, I don't care. It creeps into the cost of ownership into a car and no one seem to complain about that.

It's not like at present people aren't aware that guns are dangerous, or that you're not supposed to point them at others and pull the trigger. There are exceptions, but those probably won't get you a sizable chunk of that 40k.

Here, I do agree that I won't solve a majority of the 40K but I firmly believe the licensing will lessen the amount of guns out there which even if it reduces those killed by 20% is worth doing. Especially if people are more aware of the dangers of others getting a hold of them.

But again, this is only my opinion, but I feel it is reasonable and not totally impossible that a future court may come to a similar opinion. (after trump stops appointing judges of course)

I can understand Commodore's and others objection, but not if the thought is that it's a prelude to come and take our guns.

Hey If a convicted murderer is released from jail, I think it's reasonable that he not be allowed to buy an automatic weapon.
Once you except that, then it just comes down to defining where the line is. If you think he should be allowed to, then we really have nothing to discuss.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Again, my original intent is that guns should be treated like we do with cars since a similar number of casualties can be associated to each. (you can go back and read my posts)
I'm not saying take them away, or not let people have them.
I'm saying license the people for possession through testing after the completion of safety and use courses.
Registration of the gun like cars.
Nothing more or less.

My idea (and the most realistic I can think of) to implement a nationwide American firearm permit system is to make firearm safety/training/ethics part of the national high school/GED curriculum. People born after after a certain date will need a permit to possess and purchase firearms. Thus future students who pass the class can apply for and receive a firearms license on their 18th birthday (provided they aren't legally prohibited from owning firearms).

This would not be unlike how we got our driver's licenses (at least in my state). And several states have already been doing firearm classes for students who want a hunting permit.

The classes could be voluntary or mandatory but IMO even people who don't have an interest in owning/shootings guns should still get minimal training.

 

[rah]

I guess since guns is this countries favorite drug, minimal training is probably a good idea for safety's sake.

 

[Glassfan]

One of the problems is that criminals don't obey our laws.They do what they want. Nor do suicides. And really, neither do cops. The purpose of ever increasing gun control legislation appears not to be to prevent gun violence, but rather to pile up criminal penalties on the rare occasion a shooter is actually brought to justice.

As a law abiding citizen, I would never shoot you (unless you threaten my family). To punish me with endless gun control, while criminals remain unaffected, doesn't seem rational.

 

[zazazuzu]

I lived well over forty years in the US. I never once in my life owned a gun. I was never threatened by one. I never needed one. Make of that what you will.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, preventing access to criminals requires making it harder for law-abiding people to get guns.

If we start at the basal freedom, that access is unlimited, it becomes impossible to prevent people who shouldn't have guns from having guns.

But also, deciding that some shouldn't have guns then means that it's a privilege and not a right.

I've been (falsely) accused of murder in a death penalty state. Can you think of a reason I should not be allowed to CC while at trial?

 

[Glassfan]

But also, deciding that some shouldn't have guns then means that it's a privilege and not a right.

I've been (falsely) accused of murder in a death penalty state. Can you think of a reason I should not be allowed to CC while at trial?

The right to bear arms is a right, but as rah and others have pointed out, it may be regulated.

By law, there are places (which I have mentioned above) where guns are restricted. Courts are among these.

 

[rah]

One of the problems is that criminals don't obey our laws.They do what they want. Nor do suicides. And really, neither do cops. The purpose of ever increasing gun control legislation appears not to be to prevent gun violence, but rather to pile up criminal penalties on the rare occasion a shooter is actually brought to justice.

While there is some truth there, why does it look like it has a positive impact in places like the UK and other places in Europe?
There must be a healthy balance somewhere.

 

[zazazuzu]

Criminals don't obey the law, therefore, there should be no laws. This way, law abiding citizens won't be hampered by them, and will be on an equal footing with criminals who don't obey the laws...

 

[Glassfan]

While there is some truth there, why does it look like it has a positive impact in places like the UK and other places in Europe?
There must be a healthy balance somewhere.

Strongly agree.

Criminals don't obey the law, therefore, there should be no laws. This way, law abiding citizens won't be hampered by them, and will be on an equal footing with criminals who don't obey the laws...

Sarcasm noted. There are good laws and there are bad laws.

IMHO, there is no getting on an equal footing with a criminal. I accept the social contract, be he does whatever he wants. If a law were written intelligently, so that it impacts the criminal without hamstringing a law abiding citizen, that would be a perfect world. But instead, we elect fools to write our laws and they are not intelligently written.

 

[Commodore]

Criminals don't obey the law, therefore, there should be no laws. This way, law abiding citizens won't be hampered by them, and will be on an equal footing with criminals who don't obey the laws...

Except that's not the argument that's being made. The argument is there is no legitimate reason to implement laws that would turn currently law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight when those laws will have absolutely zero impact on the current criminals they are supposedly being implemented to stop.