Why gun control isn't the answer

[bilby]

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.

It's a shit argument that depends upon a hugely simplistic view of what gun control laws actually achieve.

In the UK, guns are not hard to come by. A criminal can buy a gun from the traditional dodgy bloke in a pub for about the same price that it would cost a licensed gun owner at a gun shop. But criminals in the UK rarely carry guns, because of the law.

The gun nuts of the USA would have you believe that this is absurd, and cannot be true; They think that a gun law that doesn't prevent criminals from obtaining guns at low cost and at any time is completely ineffective - because, like so many idiots, they rely on theory when observation would give better results (they are the same people who say that Universal Health Care cannot possibly work too).

The reality is that the law in the UK doesn't make it hard to obtain a gun; but it makes owning a gun very risky indeed.

In America, if a citizen (or even a cop) sees a gun in your car or your house, then that's no big deal. You likely are allowed to have it; If a citizen reports seeing a gun to the cops, the cops just wonder why he is making a fuss over what is likely perfectly lawful. Even if a cop decides to check out the fact that someone has a gun, and finds that they are prohibited from having it, the penalty is light. Perhaps the gun gets confiscated, and the person who had it gets a small fine.

In the UK, if the cops find a gun in your possession, then you had better have a licence for it, or expect to spend a long time in jail. If a citizen sees (or thinks he sees) a man with a gun, they call the cops in a panic; and the cops send an armed Tactical Response team (what Americans would call a SWAT team) to investigate. That's just if one citizen says he thought he saw a person with a gun. Not a person committing a crime with a gun; just a person with a gun in their possession.

A UK criminal doesn't own or carry a gun on a regular basis, not because they are difficult to obtain, but because they lead to a whole lot of unwanted police attention. Even armed robbers tend not to own guns - they rent them from black-market gun handlers who take them back once the job has been done. Because nobody in the UK gets away with flashing guns about - the handful of criminals who own guns are damn careful about who knows about it, and are aware that mere association with guns is a huge risk.

3D printers make no difference to this; Availability is not the thing that sensible gun control addresses. Gun control makes gun crime and illegal gun ownership more difficult. Then it doesn't matter that obtaining guns is easy. Even the criminals don't want them, except for the brief period when they think they might use them. Because simple possession of the things is a liability, and opens you up to harsh punishment if anyone should just happen to notice that you have one.

 

[sharon45]

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

Neither guns nor people's minds are easy to regulate and control, especially that of the criminal mind with an illegal gun. And tyranny is largely a subjective term, as I heard plenty of this from the right once Obama took office, which now has come another turn toward the left with Trump.

 

[sharon45]

In the UK, if the cops find a gun in your possession, then you had better have a licence for it, or expect to spend a long time in jail. If a citizen sees (or thinks he sees) a man with a gun, they call the cops in a panic; and the cops send an armed Tactical Response team (what Americans would call a SWAT team) to investigate. That's just if one citizen says he thought he saw a person with a gun. Not a person committing a crime with a gun; just a person with a gun in their possession.

Ha, well, that truly dumps aviational blue ice all over concealed carry promoters.

 

[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

Neither guns nor people's minds are easy to regulate and control, especially that of the criminal mind with an illegal gun. And tyranny is largely a subjective term, as I heard plenty of this from the right once Obama took office, which now has come another turn toward the left with Trump.

I agree with you that tyranny is subjective. But that also means the debate is really about a judgement call on how much freedom we are willing to give up tomorrow for the purpose of saving lives today. Someone like myself and founders of the US would say the freedom is worth a lot and someone like Micheal Moore would say the lives lost to guns are worth more. But it is still a judgement call.

It is very disingenuous to frame this debate any other way.

 

[RVonse]

Neither guns nor people's minds are easy to regulate

It isn't perfect but we do a fair job regulating people's minds when it comes to driving our automobile's. Get caught DWI and go to jail.

 

[RVonse]

Living without the 2nd Amendment is like owning a house without fire insurance. You might feel better off and even be better off today. But it will be at great risk for tomorrow.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

(Not wishing to derails a rather good thread)
How is that any different for you as a 'nonçonservative'? You too, want the world to be oriented whatever way is most convenient for you, whatever way that happens to be at any particular moment, even if it actually makes it totally inconvenient for everyone else.

 

[Malintent]

If the government actually represented the wishes of the citizenry, it would be a different situation... but in all of our "citizens united" wisdom, we have decided to let our government represent corporate interests instead.

no offense, but i find that to be both incredibly naive and a massive case of wishful thinking.

you can't blame "special interest" boogeymen for this, despite clearly wishing it were otherwise you have to face the fact that this is the will of the people.
gun nuts are nuts for guns (that's kind of inherent in the name) and the overwhelming majority of not-gun-nuts have gone into the meek defensive stance of "oh well i mean yes you can have them of course but maybe if you don't mind we could...?" when it comes to regulation.
there's zero aggressive public calls-to-action when it comes to the idea of saying "yeah, fuck you" to the 2nd amendment and just banning all firearms of all sorts without exception forever, which is the ONLY solution to the gun problem in america.

anything short of that is just looking at an arterial wound and arguing over which type of leaf is the best to put on top of it to stop the bleeding.

If you LIE to people and tell them that a candidate is going to "take away your guns" (and that candidate is a moron that relies on people engaging in their own degree of skepticism),then the "will of the people" is not the will of the people, but of the opposing candidate.

Chant "lock her up" long enough and others will join in the herd... it will become normalized and "truthy"... but does not represent the "will of the people".

A Bernie Sanders Town Hall had a lady that voted for Trump ask Bernie some questions.. He asked her what she wanted for her family, and wouldn't you know it, it was the exact opposite of what she voted for... and she still didn't get it. "will of the people" my ASS.

 

[Playball40]

Nonsense. Statistically having a gun in your house is not going to protect you or make you whole in the case of a robbery. If fact it's more likely to be stolen or misused by a child, since most home invaders avoid an occupied house.

Living without the 2nd Amendment is like owning a house without fire insurance. You might feel better off and even be better off today. But it will be at great risk for tomorrow.

 

[Angry Floof]

I disagree, the issue of guns is very evenly divided and the people who like their guns are very vocal and will ban together for it. This one isn't just the lobby's fault.

I suppose their hyper paranoia about Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama taking their guns has nothing to do with the NRA.

Or the millions the NRA has paid into the legislative process. The wages of our representatives are only in the six figures. Payments from the NRA and corporate interests is a fast track to wealth for politicians.

 

[Elixir]

no offense, but i find that to be both incredibly naive and a massive case of wishful thinking.

you can't blame "special interest" boogeymen for this, despite clearly wishing it were otherwise you have to face the fact that this is the will of the people.
gun nuts are nuts for guns (that's kind of inherent in the name) and the overwhelming majority of not-gun-nuts have gone into the meek defensive stance of "oh well i mean yes you can have them of course but maybe if you don't mind we could...?" when it comes to regulation.
there's zero aggressive public calls-to-action when it comes to the idea of saying "yeah, fuck you" to the 2nd amendment and just banning all firearms of all sorts without exception forever, which is the ONLY solution to the gun problem in america.

anything short of that is just looking at an arterial wound and arguing over which type of leaf is the best to put on top of it to stop the bleeding.

If you LIE to people and tell them that a candidate is going to "take away your guns" (and that candidate is a moron that relies on people engaging in their own degree of skepticism),then the "will of the people" is not the will of the people, but of the opposing candidate.

Chant "lock her up" long enough and others will join in the herd... it will become normalized and "truthy"... but does not represent the "will of the people".

A Bernie Sanders Town Hall had a lady that voted for Trump ask Bernie some questions.. He asked her what she wanted for her family, and wouldn't you know it, it was the exact opposite of what she voted for... and she still didn't get it. "will of the people" my ASS.

Yes, that.
And I know polls are FAKE NEWS to those offended by their results, but...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I would call things like suicide vests to be special purpose weapons for special forces.

Guns aren't specially manufactured for terrorist groups.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

For Michael Moore to get something right would be a notable occasion.

Bowling for Columbine was a clear propaganda piece. It didn't take me more than a few minutes of watching to detect standard propaganda techniques.

 

[bilby]

Living without the 2nd Amendment is like owning a house without fire insurance. You might feel better off and even be better off today. But it will be at great risk for tomorrow.

Living without the 2nd Amendment is like owning a house without nuclear war insurance. It's expensive, and if you ever need to claim you will discover that the policy is useless.

You are being taken for a fool. No rebellion in history has relied upon freedom to bear arms for its success. Nor has any failed solely due to a lack of access to arms.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

(Not wishing to derails a rather good thread)
How is that any different for you as a 'nonçonservative'? You too, want the world to be oriented whatever way is most convenient for you, whatever way that happens to be at any particular moment, even if it actually makes it totally inconvenient for everyone else.

Actually, I prefer that the world is oriented in a way that is most convenient for the maximum number of people possible, not me in particular. I'm willing to accept a certain amount of inconvenience so long as the situation is as close to optimal as it can possibly be for the maximum number of people. This is called "fairness."

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives do not care if the world is fair, only that it works in whatever way they want it to work at any particular moment in time. If and when their agenda changes, the world must change to suit it. This is why their positions seem so drastically inconsistent from one situation to the next; they don't actually have positions, they have agendas. The rules exist specifically to serve that agenda, whatever it is, in whatever context they need it to.

 

[sharon45]

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

I would call things like suicide vests to be special purpose weapons for special forces.

Guns aren't specially manufactured for terrorist groups.

Yes, that is why I was talking about the sentiment you presented, not the actual product.

 

[Copernicus]

... 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?

Sorry, but I can't make much sense out of your hypothetical scenario or imaginary statistic.

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

The original amendment had long been interpreted as connected to militia training--essentially lock and load musket formations--and Heller has now extended it to be a personal right for "lawful purposes". Nothing in the amendment says that citizens are entitled to cheap guns, irresponsible handling of weapons, or exemption from mandatory insurance policies. Nothing in it says that the government cannot use due process to register weapons, license owners, and regulate types of weapon and ammunition. You are dreaming, if you think otherwise. Not even freedom of speech is unrestricted. The government imposes reasonable limits on slander, libel, and incitement to commit mayhem.

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.

I approve bilby's answer to this. You can build a bomb out of fertilizer and other legal ingredients, but it is still illegal. There is no law that can perfectly prevent criminals and lunatics from getting their hands on firearms, but that doesn't mean that we should remove reasonable barriers to them getting their hands on firearms.

 

[sharon45]

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

Nothing in the amendment says that citizens are entitled to cheap guns, irresponsible handling of weapons, or exemption from mandatory insurance policies. Nothing in it says that the government cannot use due process to register weapons, license owners, and regulate types of weapon and ammunition. You are dreaming, if you think otherwise.

Yet where does it say that the government can add things like this in the 2nd Amendment?

Not even freedom of speech is unrestricted. The government imposes reasonable limits on slander, libel, and incitement to commit mayhem.

Yes, I know this is easily done, except I disagree with the word "reasonable," since that is obviously quite subjective.

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.

I approve bilby's answer to this. You can build a bomb out of fertilizer and other legal ingredients, but it is still illegal. There is no law that can perfectly prevent criminals and lunatics from getting their hands on firearms, but that doesn't mean that we should remove reasonable barriers to them getting their hands on firearms.

Ah, and here is that pesky word "reasonable" again.

 

[Copernicus]

Nothing in the amendment says that citizens are entitled to cheap guns, irresponsible handling of weapons, or exemption from mandatory insurance policies. Nothing in it says that the government cannot use due process to register weapons, license owners, and regulate types of weapon and ammunition. You are dreaming, if you think otherwise.

Yet where does it say that the government can add things like this in the 2nd Amendment?

Where does it say that the government can restrict libelous or slanderous speech? Figure that out, and you have your answer. BTW, the courts are empowered to restrict the government when it oversteps its authority.

Not even freedom of speech is unrestricted. The government imposes reasonable limits on slander, libel, and incitement to commit mayhem.

Yes, I know this is easily done, except I disagree with the word "reasonable," since that is obviously quite subjective.

Luckily, we do not need to rely on your subjective opinion. The Constitution empowers Congress and the courts to determine what is reasonable. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court applied an unprecedented standard of interpretation in the 5-4 Heller decision, but that is their prerogative.

 

[sharon45]

Yet where does it say that the government can add things like this in the 2nd Amendment?

Where does it say that the government can restrict libelous or slanderous speech? Figure that out, and you have your answer. BTW, the courts are empowered to restrict the government when it oversteps its authority.

Yes, oversteps, yet another subjective word.

Not even freedom of speech is unrestricted. The government imposes reasonable limits on slander, libel, and incitement to commit mayhem.

Yes, I know this is easily done, except I disagree with the word "reasonable," since that is obviously quite subjective.

Luckily, we do not need to rely on your subjective opinion.

A very wise choice.

The Constitution empowers Congress and the courts to determine what is reasonable. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court applied an unprecedented standard of interpretation in the 5-4 Heller decision, but that is their prerogative.

Yeah, like corporations are people.

 

[RVonse]

Living without the 2nd Amendment is like owning a house without fire insurance. You might feel better off and even be better off today. But it will be at great risk for tomorrow.

Living without the 2nd Amendment is like owning a house without nuclear war insurance. It's expensive, and if you ever need to claim you will discover that the policy is useless.

You are being taken for a fool. No rebellion in history has relied upon freedom to bear arms for its success. Nor has any failed solely due to a lack of access to armsoo.

What???

History is filled with examples too numerous to include here. This one comes first to my mind though. Here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wizna