Why gun control isn't the answer

[sharon45]

Well, I would have thought they could have done this already, since there is no constitutional right to ammunition, that I am aware of.

good try, but no. Could the militia men fighting the British have beaten the British with spit balls? If people feel this strongly then need to create another amendment.

Humorous, but that is not really an answer pointing out exactly where ammunition is a constitutional right.

 

[coloradoatheist]

good try, but no. Could the militia men fighting the British have beaten the British with spit balls? If people feel this strongly then need to create another amendment.

Humorous, but that is not really an answer pointing out exactly where ammunition is a constitutional right.

The bullets are included in the arms defintion. A militia couldn't do anything without bullets.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Assault weapon" is a PR term, not a gun term.

The government could prohibit private ownership of self-loading guns. If the hunting and defending-themselves public had to content themselves with revolvers and bolt-action rifles, they and the 2nd Amendment could live with that.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Maybe a few sizable Christmas mall massacres will get the right people creating the right laws. Hit retail sales in America and we'll see just how insignificant the gun lobby is.
When people start to limit their exposure to places of public gathering, we'll see change.

 

[Copernicus]

Of course gun control is not THE ANSWER. There is not one action or law that is THE ANSWER. The real question is whether thoughtful and realistic gun control combined with other policies is part of THE ANSWER.

Maybe if the entire right wing didn't distort the issue into a giant Straw Man = 'Banning guns', a conversation could ensue. It's entirely easy to point to a law or regulation that no one is suggesting and conclude that it won't work. What no one on the right seems to be able to admit is that reasonable regulation (licensing, registration, background checks, insurance requirements, taxes on ammunition) reduces the risk to the overall population - and that that end is desirable. We don't have to prevent las vegas perfectly. And maybe 'assault weapon' is difficult to define precisely. But how can anyone deny that imposing some purchasing restrictions on weapons designed to primarily kill humans would have saved some of the lives in this disaster?

aa

I am not arguing for either. I am simply saying that easily using the term straw man works for the other side also. It is both camps plainly talking past each other.

Again, no. No leftist in this thread brought up abortion. To wit, you were the first and only person to bring it up. In fact, the entire idea that 'leftists also engage in strawmen' is a strawman with respect to this thread. Similarly, no leftist on this thread brought up banning guns. There have been calls for regulation and reasonable restriction. The left already knows that 'banning guns' is a non-starter. And yet the right continually starts from that premise with their arguments. Or, like the OP, from the position that any law put in place will perfectly prevent gun murders (which no one has proposed).

This is not Moore/Coulter. Do your own legwork and find an example of a left issued straw-man in this thread (or others on gun control even). Conversely, the entire premise of "Why gun control isn't the answer" OP and linked articles is demonstrably one.

Do better.

aa

Excellent replies, but sharon will turn this into an argumentum ad nauseam. Your original point was quite true, but the strawman "ban all guns" ploy is just one of many rhetorical fallacies that you find out there.

There is also a lot of nonsense that does not involve rhetorical fallacies, e.g. the 3D printer argument. As if everyone was suddenly going to manufacture guns in their basement to thwart gun control laws. How many of us actually manufacture anything at all with 3D printers? All the new technology does is make manufacturing easier and cheaper. You still need equipment and raw materials. And you still run the risk of criminal violations for printing items that are illegal.

The main problem we have in the US is the mountain of legally-owned guns, which are the main source of supply for illegally-owned ones. If you reduce the legal source, then the availability for criminal and casual misuse will inevitably reduce. Guns are a primary source of suicide primarily because they are so convenient for those who suffer from suicidal depression. Studies that focus primarily on gun deaths, most of which are suicides, pay little attention to the far more serious problem of gun-related injuries, which are enormous and can have life-altering consequences.

So how do you reduce the legal supply of guns? You do it the same way that you reduce the legal supply of cigarettes--by placing restrictions on their sale, making them more expensive to obtain (i.e. by requiring training and insurance), public education campaigns, enhancing law enforcement tools (licensing and registration), and raising the level of opprobrium associated with their use. Cigarettes are not banned, but they are far less of a public health risk than they were 40 years ago. These kinds of solutions take time and generational change. There are no quick solutions, but there are practical solutions that can work over time.

 

[Bomb#20]

good try, but no. Could the militia men fighting the British have beaten the British with spit balls? If people feel this strongly then need to create another amendment.

Humorous, but that is not really an answer pointing out exactly where ammunition is a constitutional right.

Pointing out exactly where? The United States.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe a few sizable Christmas mall massacres will get the right people creating the right laws. Hit retail sales in America and we'll see just how insignificant the gun lobby is.
When people start to limit their exposure to places of public gathering, we'll see change.

I think the gun lobby soln then would be to ban malls or Xmas.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Gun Control is actually a lost cause.

That sure the hell is true. 20 dead children... nothing. 58 dead white country music fans... maybe add a piece of paperwork for bump stocks... otherwise nothing.

America loves guns and will demand to keep having them and those killed in these horrific massacres are just the price America pays so that people can haves guns at nearly a practically unrestricted level.

If not for the fact that gun nuts and mass shooters overwhelmingly tend to be conservatives, I would say this is a problem that solves itself: sooner or later, some nutcase with an AR-15 and a bump stock will mow down the entirety of Congress and their successors will, in a flash of enlightened self interest, ban assault rifles for good.

But the more likely scenario is a mass shooter going and gunning down all the liberal congressmen a few at a time, with Republicans clicking their tongues and saying "See? That's what you get for trying to grab people's guns." Naturally the one or two Republican congressmen who get caught in the crossfire is an "outrage" and "massive national tragedy" and "proof that liberals shouldn't be allowed to have guns without extensive background checks and mental health screenings."

Because, frankly, conservative thought is just a highly organized coping mechanism for dealing with cognitive dissonance. All of the people I know who are or have ever been conservatives have this same problem: They want the world to be oriented in whatever way is most convenient for them, whatever way that happens to be at any particular moment, even if it actually makes it totally inconvenient for everyone else. It's the politics of being an asshole.

 

[maxparrish]

... The main problem we have in the US is the mountain of legally-owned guns, which are the main source of supply for illegally-owned ones. If you reduce the legal source, then the availability for criminal and casual misuse will inevitably reduce. Guns are a primary source of suicide primarily because they are so convenient for those who suffer from suicidal depression. Studies that focus primarily on gun deaths, most of which are suicides, pay little attention to the far more serious problem of gun-related injuries, which are enormous and can have life-altering consequences.

So how do you reduce the legal supply of guns? You do it the same way that you reduce the legal supply of cigarettes--by placing restrictions on their sale, making them more expensive to obtain (i.e. by requiring training and insurance), public education campaigns, enhancing law enforcement tools (licensing and registration), and raising the level of opprobrium associated with their use. Cigarettes are not banned, but they are far less of a public health risk than they were 40 years ago. These kinds of solutions take time and generational change. There are no quick solutions, but there are practical solutions that can work over time.

Surely if you place enough restrictions and make them expensive enough over generation we might be able to reduce the supply by 80 to 90 percent. You would be in opposition to that?

 

[sharon45]

Humorous, but that is not really an answer pointing out exactly where ammunition is a constitutional right.

The bullets are included in the arms defintion. A militia couldn't do anything without bullets.

It's most conveniently included, and I am guessing here, even though ammunition is a separate purchase and does not require a registration and waiting period.

 

[sharon45]

"Assault weapon" is a PR term, not a gun term.

The government could prohibit private ownership of self-loading guns. If the hunting and defending-themselves public had to content themselves with revolvers and bolt-action rifles, they and the 2nd Amendment could live with that.

But then comes in the classic argument about the criminals getting ahold of said self-loading guns.

 

[sharon45]

So how do you reduce the legal supply of guns? You do it the same way that you reduce the legal supply of cigarettes--by placing restrictions on their sale, making them more expensive to obtain (i.e. by requiring training and insurance), public education campaigns, enhancing law enforcement tools (licensing and registration), and raising the level of opprobrium associated with their use. Cigarettes are not banned, but they are far less of a public health risk than they were 40 years ago. These kinds of solutions take time and generational change. There are no quick solutions, but there are practical solutions that can work over time.

Right, except cigarettes are not a constitutional right and they are a lot easier to produce.

 

[sharon45]

Humorous, but that is not really an answer pointing out exactly where ammunition is a constitutional right.

Pointing out exactly where? The United States.

Pointing out from the actual Constitution.

 

[sharon45]

Naturally the one or two Republican congressmen who get caught in the crossfire is an "outrage" and "massive national tragedy" and "proof that liberals shouldn't be allowed to have guns without extensive background checks and mental health screenings."

Many gun owners have a problem with trusting the government to preside over "extensive background checks and mental health screenings."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe if the entire right wing didn't distort the issue into a giant Straw Man = 'Banning guns', a conversation could ensue. It's entirely easy to point to a law or regulation that no one is suggesting and conclude that it won't work. What no one on the right seems to be able to admit is that reasonable regulation (licensing, registration, background checks, insurance requirements, taxes on ammunition) reduces the risk to the overall population - and that that end is desirable. We don't have to prevent las vegas perfectly. And maybe 'assault weapon' is difficult to define precisely. But how can anyone deny that imposing some purchasing restrictions on weapons designed to primarily kill humans would have saved some of the lives in this disaster?

aa

Calling them reasonable doesn't make it so.

Licensing: I'm fine with this but I have yet to see any proposals in this regard.

Registration: A list of guns--the current holy grail of the gun banners. It's not going to do anything about the criminals, it's just a list of the law-abiding. It will do very little for safety but it will make future confiscation a lot easier.

Background checks: Be reasonable about this and it will pass in most places. The problem is that the left is no more capable of coming up with reasonable gun rules than the right is at coming up with reasonable abortion rules. However, I think the whole idea is wrong--if you have licenses you don't need background checks on purchase.

(How about a compromise? You can get a gun license {which involves a background check} or you can have a background check on transfer. That's close to how it worked here--there was no gun license per se, but you could show a CCW permit and avoid a background check. The ballot measure we just had on background checks would have gotten rid of this exemption had it not been a piece of crap that was impossible to actually implement.)

Insurance: Guns are involved in very few incidents for which insurance would apply. If you're shooting at a person it's either self defense (at which point the person you shot has no basis for a claim) or it's criminal (and insurance always excludes willful criminal acts.) The requirement to have liability insurance on a gun is really just an attempt to drive up the cost and to get a backdoor list of everyone's guns.

Tax on ammunition: Crap. The people that use a lot of ammunition are very unlikely to be using it in a way that imposes any costs on society.

As for a weapon primarily designed to kill humans--about all I can think of along those lines are specialty weapons for spies and special forces. No other weapon has a primary purpose of killing.

Take your "assault rifle": The primary purpose to which these are put is shooting at targets. Even in a self-defense situation a gun is unlikely to be fired--the primary purpose is deterrence. (Which is also the primary purpose of all ordinary military weapons. We don't build them to shoot them, we build them to discourage other countries from doing things that put us in a position of needing to shoot them. They're only fired if the primary mission fails.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is also a lot of nonsense that does not involve rhetorical fallacies, e.g. the 3D printer argument. As if everyone was suddenly going to manufacture guns in their basement to thwart gun control laws. How many of us actually manufacture anything at all with 3D printers? All the new technology does is make manufacturing easier and cheaper. You still need equipment and raw materials. And you still run the risk of criminal violations for printing items that are illegal.

The reason for the 3D printer argument is that soon the criminal will be able to print their own gun. It's not practical yet because metal printers are quite expensive but the price is falling rapidly. Nobody will know you're using your printer to print a gun so they won't be able to stop you.

 

[sharon45]

Take your "assault rifle": The primary purpose to which these are put is shooting at targets. Even in a self-defense situation a gun is unlikely to be fired--the primary purpose is deterrence. (Which is also the primary purpose of all ordinary military weapons. We don't build them to shoot them, we build them to discourage other countries from doing things that put us in a position of needing to shoot them. They're only fired if the primary mission fails.)

Well, this idea sure got corrupted and then exploited by terrorist groups.

 

[RVonse]

Why does everyone automatically conclude that reducing guns is the solution? It is NOT the shooters guns that are the problem, it is the shooter's brain. And his brain was on an anti-depresant which is known to cause these kind of side effects.

Why aren't liberals and progressives demanding more control and concerns over the drug companies that peddle these hallucinogenic's? Could it be that there are powerful special drug company interests at play? I think it is fair to say that had Paddock been of a normal state of mind the guns wouldn't have come into play.

As for reducing guns, that also reduces our liberty and the 2nd Amendment. You hear it said over and over again that Canada is so great because they restrict guns so less murders with guns. Well........Dah! Anyone but a moron can figure that out. But does anyone stop to wonder what happens to Canadians if/when their government enters a state of tyranny??? And to anyone who thinks that can never happen.....it has happened before and can happen again. We all live in the human condition and that makes tyranny possible.

So reducing guns from the population is both good and bad. Not just always good. Reducing guns from our population might even save lives, but at great cost to liberty.

I say fix people's brains first

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Michael Moore had it right in Bowling for Colombine. It isn't so much guns as fear and the celebration of gun violence in America.

 

[Bomb#20]

Pointing out exactly where? The United States.

Pointing out from the actual Constitution.

Ah, that would be the Second Amendment. If you're proposing to argue that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to firearms but not an individual right to ammunition, well, the reason the SCOTUS will reject that argument is that the SCOTUS has not yet become sufficiently corrupt to rule that Congress may jail people for criticizing the War on Drugs while standing on a soapbox in the town square, and may satisfy the requirements of the First Amendment by providing conveniently placed one-person-sized sound-proof booths, for citizens who disapprove of it to seal themselves inside of and speak their disapproval to their hearts' content.