Some clear evidence gun bans won't disarm the people

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBhOmn9zHVQ

Yeah, it's not talking about gun bans at all.

Note the weapons involved, though--WWII weapons. They weren't legal--those weapons must have been hidden away for decades, to be brought out when their owners felt the need.

 

[zorq]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBhOmn9zHVQ

Yeah, it's not talking about gun bans at all.

Note the weapons involved, though--WWII weapons. They weren't legal--those weapons must have been hidden away for decades, to be brought out when their owners felt the need.

Oh yeah, and banning murder is a pointless exercise because even after the ban there will still be murders.

:sigh:

Does enforcing a ban on murder affect the murder rate? Yes.
Does enforcing a ban on firearms affect the firearm injury and fatality rate? Yes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBhOmn9zHVQ

Yeah, it's not talking about gun bans at all.

Note the weapons involved, though--WWII weapons. They weren't legal--those weapons must have been hidden away for decades, to be brought out when their owners felt the need.

Oh yeah, and banning murder is a pointless exercise because even after the ban there will still be murders.

:sigh:

Does enforcing a ban on murder affect the murder rate? Yes.
Does enforcing a ban on firearms affect the firearm injury and fatality rate? Yes.

The point is you get almost no guns from those who would be inclined to misuse them.

 

[zorq]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBhOmn9zHVQ

Yeah, it's not talking about gun bans at all.

Note the weapons involved, though--WWII weapons. They weren't legal--those weapons must have been hidden away for decades, to be brought out when their owners felt the need.

Oh yeah, and banning murder is a pointless exercise because even after the ban there will still be murders.

:sigh:

Does enforcing a ban on murder affect the murder rate? Yes.
Does enforcing a ban on firearms affect the firearm injury and fatality rate? Yes.

The point is you get almost no guns from those who would be inclined to misuse them.

The point is that guns are dangerous no matter what the inclination of the user is.

Edit: Which by the way is far from immutable. 'Responsible gun owners' can and do frequently flip to murderers and terrorists. All it takes is a spurned lover, a personal tragedy, an unexpected drug interaction, or countless other things to make people typically inclined to responsible behavior become careless, reckless, or malevolent.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The point is to reduce overall gun deaths by different legislation methods. One type of legislation will save a few here, another a few there, and the saved lives add up. Just as we have several different rules of the road that combine to reduce traffic accidents and lives lost, so we can do a piecemeal approach to gun safety legislation. It's not a "gun ban" regardless of what the firearm fetishists think.

 

[Underseer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBhOmn9zHVQ

Yeah, it's not talking about gun bans at all.

Note the weapons involved, though--WWII weapons. They weren't legal--those weapons must have been hidden away for decades, to be brought out when their owners felt the need.

So Japan and the UK have just as many mass shootings as us, or do they have fewer mass shootings as us?

Huh. Only America has so many mass shootings per capita, and only America has such permissive gun laws. It's almost as if there is some kind of connection. Oh well, banning guns doesn't 100% prevent all gun crime, therefore we should not try to regulate guns.

Of course, that same argument could be used to say that all criminal law is pointless, but who's keeping track? This argument becomes invalid if we apply it to a different conclusion, right?

 

[untermensche]

If you ban guns some people will get guns and use them.

That is a fact.

But much fewer people will use them then use them now.

And over time very few people will have access to them.

Especially young dumb high school kids with no underworld connections.

That is the point.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Criminals will feel less need to have them too as they stop expecting their victims could be armed. That's opposite logic of the NRA, but it holds true and means fewer fatalities in crime. He will take your wallet still, but he is less likely to kill you.

 

[Jokodo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBhOmn9zHVQ

Yeah, it's not talking about gun bans at all.

Note the weapons involved, though--WWII weapons. They weren't legal--those weapons must have been hidden away for decades, to be brought out when their owners felt the need.

I'm sure a lot of that weaponry wasn't actually stored by private individuals but by the local chapters of the  Territorial_Defense_(Yugoslavia). That was a volunteer force organised at the communal level, with the intend to support the Yugoslav National Army in case of an invasion by speeding up and facilitating the emergence of a popular resistance. Its local chapters held stores of weaponry that was "usually second-rate compared to what the national army used"(1), which certainly included a lot of vintage weapons. When Yugoslavia broke up, some of the new republics' armies, as well as paramilitary groups where built with the Territorial Defence's seized weaponry as their foundation.

And what makes you think that all or most of those rifles, even if they were owned privately, where illegally held throughout those decades? Hunting was a common pastime in rural Yugoslavia, and in a country with a thriving wolf and bear population, nary a farmer is going to be unarmed.


(1) It doesn't say so on the English Wikipedia, but here's what it says on the Croatian one: "Naoružanje TO obično je bilo drugorazredno u odnosu na ono što je koristila JNA, a ono se skladištilo u općinskim skladištima."

 

[Jokodo]

See also the comment by user "ravnica1" underneath your youtube video (sometimes though rarely, it pays to read youtube comments), quoted here in full:

"Some background why vintage weaponry.Yugoslavia's defense doctrine was Total People's Defense - it had roots in WWII and a very specific geographical and political position Yugoslavia found itself in during Cold War.

It was perceived that any aggressor from East or West would have an overwhelming advantage in weapons. The doctrine resulted in two components of the Armed Forces - Yugoslav Peoples Army (YPA) and Territorial Defense in theorry deploying up to 8 million people in active resistance. Territorial Defense was devolved to the constituent Republics and when the country became to disintegrate it became nucleus of the new independent armed forces.

Territorial defense was routinely armed with the weaponry that was YPAa surplus to requirements, although some units received modern weapons. Therefore Territorial defense had in it's arsenal vintage weapons well into 80s and 90s.

Worth nothing some of the weapon designs where of such quality they were locally produced and remained in YPAs arsenal up to the 90s. MG42 was reversed engineered in Zastava factory and produced as M53, Therefore the specimens seen in the video may not necessarily originate from WWII"

 

[Opoponax]

If you ban guns some people will get guns and use them.

That is a fact.

But much fewer people will use them then use them now.

And over time very few people will have access to them.

Especially young dumb high school kids with no underworld connections.

That is the point.

That is the most sensible approach. There's not going to be an overnight thing where suddenly 300,000,000 guns disappear from America. It's going to take a generation, and probably more to fix the problem.

This is also a cultural issue. American culture, among other things, is fucking violent. It's glorified and so often held up as the most efficient solution to problems. This runs the gamut from fists to warfare.

But we're not even close to solving the problem. Even if the semi-auto rifle were to be banned, it makes up a small fraction of overall gun deaths. They're certainly good for the most spectacular killings, but handguns by far account for most homicides e.g., a quick state from Wiki:

In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns

This doesn't mean that people wouldn't begin using other types of guns to kill people, but handguns are far more concealable than any other type of weapon, more transportable, and can be had for pretty cheap.

Semi-autos are a first and probably "easiest" step, but getting rid of handguns would represent the real sea-change.

I own an even dozen guns, 4 of which are handguns. And I own an AK. I personally would give them up, but I account for tiny percentage of gun owners that would. I'm what's called a "Fudd." The moniker refers to Elmer Fudd, which has caught on as an insult to gun owners who support the idea of limiting civilian gun ownership to bolt actions, lever actions, and shotguns.

I bring that up because I have some insight into the mindset of even those who consider themselves liberals/progressives who are also gun owners. The vast majority of them march in lockstep (although with much less psychotic rhetoric---but often not) with your stereotypical NRA fanatic.

IOW, guns aren't going anywhere soon, so significantly diminishing the problem is going to take a long time.

 

[ideologyhunter]

An assault weapons ban plus restrictions on magazine size makes all the sense in the world. But this is 2018 America, with an extremely delusional (or maximally cynical, take yer pick) party in ascendance. And yes, it would result in incremental change -- same as chipping away at carbon emissions. The public has ADD on these problems. Do not hold your breath.

 

[laughing dog]

The OP is attacking a straw man, as many people in this thread have pointed out in different forms. The issue is whether a specific gun control proposal will do more good than harm, not whether it eliminates the all of the potential for harm. It is such an obvious concept, one wonders why it is so hard for some people to grasp.

 

[bilby]

The OP is attacking a straw man, as many people in this thread have pointed out in different forms. The issue is whether a specific gun control proposal will do more good than harm, not whether it eliminates the all of the potential for harm. It is such an obvious concept, one wonders why it is so hard for some people to grasp.

It's also worth pointing out (yet again) that nobody is talking about 'banning guns' except those who don't want sensible gun control. I am not aware of a single nation in the developed world where guns are banned. I have owned (completely legaly) shotguns and a rifle in the United Kingdom. And I have never been a police officer or served in the armed forces.

Banning fuckwits, criminals and children from having access to easily concealed, rapid fire, and/or poorly secured firearms is not 'banning guns'.

 

[bilby]

In other news, there was a fatal crash at a traffic light controlled intersection yesterday.

Which is clear evidence that traffic lights don't save lives, and that we should therefore remove them all.

 

[Bronzeage]

The key element in any US gun control law is that it must not control guns. This serves two purposes. It lets gun control advocates have an occasional but empty victory and it lets gun control opponents harp about how gun control does not work.

Gun control opponents understand how untenable their position is, and live in fear that today is the day everyone else wises up.

 

[Random Person]

The key element in any US gun control law is that it must not control guns. This serves two purposes. It lets gun control advocates have an occasional but empty victory and it lets gun control opponents harp about how gun control does not work.

Gun control opponents understand how untenable their position is, and live in fear that today is the day everyone else wises up.

Interesting. I've never looked at it like that before.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is you get almost no guns from those who would be inclined to misuse them.

The point is that guns are dangerous no matter what the inclination of the user is.

Edit: Which by the way is far from immutable. 'Responsible gun owners' can and do frequently flip to murderers and terrorists. All it takes is a spurned lover, a personal tragedy, an unexpected drug interaction, or countless other things to make people typically inclined to responsible behavior become careless, reckless, or malevolent.

Disagree--the crime rate of those who have kept their nose clean to age 21 is very, very low.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is to reduce overall gun deaths by different legislation methods. One type of legislation will save a few here, another a few there, and the saved lives add up. Just as we have several different rules of the road that combine to reduce traffic accidents and lives lost, so we can do a piecemeal approach to gun safety legislation. It's not a "gun ban" regardless of what the firearm fetishists think.

The only way you'll accomplish what you want is a gun ban. And it's a false objective in the first place--the objective should be to reduce the death rate, the mechanism doesn't matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBhOmn9zHVQ

Yeah, it's not talking about gun bans at all.

Note the weapons involved, though--WWII weapons. They weren't legal--those weapons must have been hidden away for decades, to be brought out when their owners felt the need.

So Japan and the UK have just as many mass shootings as us, or do they have fewer mass shootings as us?

Huh. Only America has so many mass shootings per capita, and only America has such permissive gun laws. It's almost as if there is some kind of connection. Oh well, banning guns doesn't 100% prevent all gun crime, therefore we should not try to regulate guns.

Of course, that same argument could be used to say that all criminal law is pointless, but who's keeping track? This argument becomes invalid if we apply it to a different conclusion, right?

I've already explained that if preventing mass shootings is your objective that you're misguided.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The OP is attacking a straw man, as many people in this thread have pointed out in different forms. The issue is whether a specific gun control proposal will do more good than harm, not whether it eliminates the all of the potential for harm. It is such an obvious concept, one wonders why it is so hard for some people to grasp.

It's also worth pointing out (yet again) that nobody is talking about 'banning guns' except those who don't want sensible gun control. I am not aware of a single nation in the developed world where guns are banned. I have owned (completely legaly) shotguns and a rifle in the United Kingdom. And I have never been a police officer or served in the armed forces.

Banning fuckwits, criminals and children from having access to easily concealed, rapid fire, and/or poorly secured firearms is not 'banning guns'.

Nobody?

https://thewriterinblack.com/2017/05/17/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns-2/