Why gun control isn't the answer

[Loren Pechtel]

3D printers.

Yes, 3D printers.

Of course, when the first 3D printed gun was made, it wasn't a very high quality firearm, which proved there will never be any high quality 3D printers. Just like Gutenberg's printing press is not an ancestor of the internet. And the very first film movie camera is not in any way connected to a DVD.

Gun Control is actually a lost cause.

Yup. By the time we could get all the hundreds of millions of guns out of circulation 3D printing will reach the point that it can make high quality guns. There's no point in embarking on a mission whose failure is certain.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Did you read the article?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

If we lived in a fantasyland where perfect was attainable, that is. This is one of these cases with no perfect answer.

 

[none]

well there you go, people don't like being told what to do so can't make laws

 

[Loren Pechtel]

WP's paywall could be circumvented with reader view.

But they fixed it, damn.

Incognito works if you're past your article count.

 

[sharon45]

This problem just hasn't hit a supposed rock bottom yet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Last time I checked, "the public" was overwhelmingly supportive of tighter restrictions on guns- assault weapons in particular. That said, I harbor no illusions that giving in to that segment - however large or small it may be - would eliminate or even significantly mitigate the "mass shooter" problem. I like guns myself... ARs in particular. But I don't hunt, am not a candidate for an active shooting spree, and rarely get to fling lead downrange. So I'd be happy to give it up if it would help, but I don't think it would.

Another person who didn't read it.

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

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Gun control Australian style is not outside the realm of possibilty. There may well come a time when enough people are tired of the daily mass shooting in America, the latest weekend body count from Chicago that enough people say this level of mass murder is not tolerable. There may well come a time when the general public agrees, the NRA is no longer a reasonable organization, and the large number of guns available is not working as promised.

 

[sharon45]

Gun control Australian style is not outside the realm of possibilty. There may well come a time when enough people are tired of the daily mass shooting in America, the latest weekend body count from Chicago that enough people say this level of mass murder is not tolerable. There may well come a time when the general public agrees, the NRA is no longer a reasonable organization, and the large number of guns available is not working as promised.

But "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" is so irresistibly sexy, we are all simply powerless to it.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm glad we agree 3D printers are going to end the gun control debate.

3D guns didn't end the debate, the NRA did 30 years ago.

Which is why people are still arguing about it today. Less than 30 years ago there was an "assault rifle" ban passed, which according to you could never happen because of the NRA.

The real end of the debate is 3D printing, a subject that scares you far too much to discuss.

 

[sharon45]

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?

The right could equate gun restrictions with the left's need for no abortion restrictions either. Both mere suggestions are dreaded as clever ploys to eventually do away with their respective causes.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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?

The right could equate gun restrictions with the left's need for no abortion restrictions either. Both mere suggestions are dreaded as clever ploys to eventually do away with their respective causes.

Straw Man perfectly exemplified. Rather than drawing parallels to arguments that No One Is Making why not instead attack the arguments that are actually being made directly? If you'd like to argue abortion restrictions, start a thread.

aa

 

[sharon45]

The right could equate gun restrictions with the left's need for no abortion restrictions either. Both mere suggestions are dreaded as clever ploys to eventually do away with their respective causes.

Straw Man perfectly exemplified. Rather than drawing parallels to arguments that No One Is Making why not instead attack the arguments that are actually being made directly? If you'd like to argue abortion restrictions, start a thread.

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.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Straw Man perfectly exemplified. Rather than drawing parallels to arguments that No One Is Making why not instead attack the arguments that are actually being made directly? If you'd like to argue abortion restrictions, start a thread.

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

 

[sharon45]

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.

Where did I say anyone brought up abortion here?

To wit, you were the first and only person to bring it up.

Correct, as part of an example.

In fact, the entire idea that 'leftists also engage in strawmen' is a strawman with respect to this thread.

No, it was also just part of another example.

Similarly, no leftist on this thread brought up banning guns.

Again, whether anyone did or not, it was used for an illustration as your own 'Banning guns' statement listed above was.

There have been calls for regulation and reasonable restriction.

Now, if you want to talk about straw men, the idea of "reasonable restriction," is a juicy ripe one. Exactly whose idea of reasonable did you have in mind?

The left already knows that 'banning guns' is a non-starter.

Another straw man.

And yet the right continually starts from that premise with their arguments.

As I was citing above, many believe that is the end result once even so-called reasonable resrictions start being added to a constitutional right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

3D guns didn't end the debate, the NRA did 30 years ago.

Which is why people are still arguing about it today. Less than 30 years ago there was an "assault rifle" ban passed, which according to you could never happen because of the NRA.

The real end of the debate is 3D printing, a subject that scares you far too much to discuss.

You might have missed the massacres over the last 20 yrs, no changes. No 3d guns.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Which is why people are still arguing about it today. Less than 30 years ago there was an "assault rifle" ban passed, which according to you could never happen because of the NRA.

The real end of the debate is 3D printing, a subject that scares you far too much to discuss.

You might have missed the massacres over the last 20 yrs, no changes. No 3d guns.

You have shown once again you are afraid to discuss the impact 3D printers will have on gun laws. New gun laws have been passed, in spite of the insistence that it hasn't been done. The point you are terrified of is that 3D printers will make every single gun law you desire irrelevant.

 

[barbos]

You still need bullets and you can't 3D print them, so gun laws will be relevant for a while.
They can ban ammunition sale to the public

 

[sharon45]

You still need bullets and you can't 3D print them, so gun laws will be relevant for a while.
They can ban ammunition sale to the public

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

 

[coloradoatheist]

You still need bullets and you can't 3D print them, so gun laws will be relevant for a while.
They can ban ammunition sale to the public

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.