The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Lemon Merchant]

All right kiddies...

There have been too many threads derailed recently with arguments of guns and gun control, the NRA, etc. To that end I have started this thread. From now on, all discussions of guns and gun control go here. Gun control arguments in other threads will be considered off topic, and will be moderated accordingly.

So have at it, this is your space to argue. But keep it civil.

(And I'm not moving posts from the other threads because there are simply too many of them. You'll have to start fresh.)

 

[Takhisis]

*afresh

 

[Timsup2nothin]

*afresh

We could use this new gun control thread to argue semantics!

 

[Takhisis]

it's not an RD thread, after all

 

[Arwon]

Yeah so licensing and registration work, hey.

The key here is actually taking the conditions of ownership seriously - registration and licensing are substantive processes not a token tickbox. You have to sign a stat dec on storage and you're liable if the storage conditions you've registered and signed on aren't the actual conditions.

In terms of specifics, there's requirements about the storage area (hinges that can’t be lifted off, container anchored down sorta things). As part of your firearm licence application you submit a proposal for your storage setup then you prove it by receipts or by inspection. Ammunition stored separately and guns never stored loaded.

And of course any breach gets your licence revoked.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah so licensing and registration work, hey.

The key here is actually taking the conditions of ownership seriously - registration and licensing are substantive processes not a token tickbox. You have to sign a stat dec on storage and you're liable if the storage conditions you've registered and signed on aren't the actual conditions.

In terms of specifics, there's requirements about the storage area (hinges that can’t be lifted off, container anchored down sorta things). As part of your firearm licence application you submit a proposal for your storage setup then you prove it by receipts or by inspection. Ammunition stored separately and guns never stored loaded.

And of course any breach gets your licence revoked.

Wait, wut? Actual RESPONSIBILITY attached to muh rights? NEVAH I SAY!!! Muh rights are gur-un-teed bah the con-steeee-tution! Ya cain't be attachin' no responsibilities!

 

[Arwon]

As well as that, there's also a certain level of administrative seriousness required on the part of officials to construct and run such a system. I suspect that might be hard to find in some places too.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

We could use this new gun control thread to argue semantics!

I'd prefer it if you stayed on topic, thanks.

 

[onejayhawk]

I'll bring one over. It's a decent starting point.

NRA Bylaws Article II
The purposes and objectives of the National Rifle Association of America are:
1. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens;
2. To promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense;
3. To train members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, the militia, and people of good repute in marksmanship and in the safe handling and efficient use of small arms;
4. To foster and promote the shooting sports, including the advancement of amateur competitions in marksmanship at the local, state, regional, national, and international levels;
5. To promote hunter safety, and to promote and defend hunting as a shooting sport and as a viable and necessary method of fostering the propagation, growth and conservation, and wise use of our renewable wildlife resources.
The Association may take all actions necessary and proper in the furtherance of these purposes and objectives.
----
You'll have to dither about "legitimate" and "people of good repute."

J

 

[FriendlyFire]

Guns dont kill people, video games kill people
At this stage its like Ground hog day advanced alzchimers with Republicans

/sigh

 

[Yeekim]

Yeah...I think I'll stay clear of this thread. Plus, I've said pretty much everything I have to say on the matter and certain members (can't name names because somehow merely talking about people is "trolling" ) have already stuck their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to anything that challenges their narrative.

Don't you see the large number of gun-related deaths in US (at least in comparison with other First World countries) as a problem?
If so, what do you think is the greatest contributor to that problem and how might it be tackled?

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Since this thread is clearly in need of some mod text, here it is. Keep on-topic, keep it civil and avoid PDMA. Furthermore, if you have nothing to say, that's fine, but if you don't say it here, you don't say it anywhere in OT.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, I guess the clown car is no longer the place for clowns. I suppose it's an enforced partisan scratching post. W/e. But yes, hunting animals for the sake of the animals is a thing.

As with so many things, it's not generally the whiners who actually chip in and care about the long haul. They just want somebody else do to it for them, and it doesn't get done, or at least not well.

 

[Arwon]

Uh I'm not sure what the existence of animal culling has to do with gun laws?

Edit: or wait, is this about sport hunting? You're hard to understand man. And that's even more confusing - sport hunting is a valid reason for having a gun license here, there's hunting here! It's not like hunting is incompatible with having actual firearms regulation.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah...I think I'll stay clear of this thread. Plus, I've said pretty much everything I have to say on the matter

certain members [...] have already stuck their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to anything that challenges their narrative.

Yes they have Commodore...yes they have.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Nothing Trump did or did not do is responsible for what New York did. A rationalization is a rationalization just as an individual right for two and a half centuries is an individual right for two and a half centuries. Minus the rationalizations, of course. The mood in some circles is for control, not rights. As it always is. Gotta admit, the spin skills are more solid than they used to be, though that's probably illusion born of ubiquity.

I didn't blame New York's new law on Trump. I agree that its got noting to do with him.

Frankly I think Trump gives less than a crap about guns or gun rights or the 2nd Amendment or any of the Amendments FTM. My point was that the New York law might be another example of the "give no quarter" approach leading to a "scorched earth" response.

I'm not saying people shouldn't freak out about them. What I'm saying is we shouldn't base changes to our Constitution on those freak outs.

OK so getting back to this... I've been reading your whole argument on this point and thinking something was waaay off, and it hit me. You are flip-flopping again. I mean if its intentional, carry on, but I just want to make sure. Here's the explanation.

So you've been making this passionate argument against the idea that these high-school'ers advocating for the stripping of your 2nd Amendment rights. Dude that's a huge flip-flop because previously, when we were talking about the NFL protesters, and I (and others) pointed out how Trump was calling for their rights to be violated, for them to be fired, etc., and you hand waived all that, based on Trump not having any actual power to do any of what he was calling for. So now what's the difference? Other than this time its a cause/group you support and find common cause with being criticized?

This is what I keep coming back to... its not about "rights"... its about your (the royal your) favorite/pet causes. If you like the cause, you advocate it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

EDIT: And manufacturers are only sued in airplane crashes if the crash can be attributed to faulty parts. If the pilot goes crazy and just flies the plane into a mountain, you aren't going to see any manufacturers being sued.

This is incorrect. Manufacturers still frequently get sued when user error or negligence is involved.

EDIT2: That's the difference you always seem to miss when trying to make the argument that gun manufacturers should be sued. In other instances, like plane crashes, the deadly incident is usually because the product they made did not function correctly. When it comes to shootings, it's because the end user of the product in question chose to use it in an unlawful way.

And here's the difference you always miss, when you keep making this defense over and over... Manufacturers can be successfully sued when there is no "malfunction" at all, and their product, in-fact functioned exactly as intended, but was, as you say "misused" by the end user, in some inappropriate way. The issue becomes, whether the misuse or abuse was foreseeable by the manufacturer or seller. If it was, then they can still be held liable for the damages their product causes (except gun manufacturers, apparently, which is part of my gripe), typically depending on the sufficiency of the warning labels that they put on the product itself... we're talking easily seen, big bright yellow/orange/white labels with lots of conspicuous delineations about how the product must not be used, etc.

I mean, you don't see anyone calling for car manufacturers to be sued when someone uses a car to willfully run down a bunch of pedestrians.

You always say this man, and I keep pointing out to you over and over that the comparison fails because cars are intended to serve as transportation, while guns are intended to kill/maim. A gun manufacturer/seller intends for his product to be used to shoot people. It is pretty dubious that when his product is in-fact used to shoot people, that he is allowed to enjoy absolute immunity from any liability.

 

[Lexicus]

This is incorrect. Manufacturers still frequently get sued when user error or negligence is involved.

Yep. And that's because good design will take user error as a given. Here's an example. Back in the day cars were veritable death traps. There's no question that drivers, not manufacturers were largely responsible for accidents (I say "largely" because I don't want to discount the possibility that there were some fringe cases where a car was made so stupidly that its design actually contributed to causing accidents). But manufacturers were, correctly in my view, held responsible for the fact that when a car crash happened the likely outcome was death. And so they made their cars safer, and drivers still get into accidents, but way fewer of those accidents result in deaths, because the car companies were forced to make designs that were reasonably safe even taking user error as given.

You always say this man, and I keep pointing out to you over and over that the comparison fails because cars are intended to serve as transportation, while guns are intended to kill/maim. A gun manufacturer/seller intends for his product to be used to shoot people. It is pretty dubious that when his product is in-fact used to shoot people, that he is allowed to enjoy absolute immunity from any liability.

Is this the part of the conversation where Commodore insists that the point of guns is for sport shooting and then 2 posts later claims he can't store his guns safely because then they won't be available to kill a home invader at a moment's notice?

 

[Farm Boy]

My point was that the New York law might be another example of the "give no quarter" approach leading to a "scorched earth" response.

I've watched this cycle enough times to sort out why the NRA doesn't negotiate most of the time. The response wouldn't change. Mass shootings scare yuppies because they feel like they can't avoid the scummies to be safe. Trendlines don't matter. Risk factors don't matter. Effectiveness of handgun vs shotgun restrictions don't matter. The justice of serving a sentence and having it paid doesn't matter. NY, support it or not(frankly I haven't sorted it out myself since I'm being too lazy to look up the statute and hold the amendments against it(they aren't making it clear or easy to find exactly what they did, imagine that)), was going to do what it was going to do. Trump has nothing to do with it. The NRA bending farther, which it is frequently willing to do when the membership finds a class of people unsympathetic, also has nothing to do with it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I didn't blame the NRA either.