Gunchat III: The Gun Shoots Back

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gunchat III: The Gun Shoots Back

Death? This poll is closed.
Love it!	49	28.00%
Leave it!	59	33.71%
That is not dead which can eternal lie...	67	38.29%
Total:	175 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

steinrokkan posted:

Common law is the source of all your problems, but keep worshipping this anchor tied to your collective foot as you try to keep yourselves afloat.

Mmkay, will do. It's pretty funny you think we're on the verge of falling apart as a country, I guess?

TomViolence posted:

What I don't get is how there are so many gun hoarders whose rationale is pretty much "if the government became tyrannical we'd have the means to overthrow it." And yet there they languish, in thrall to a tyrannical government.

Or the ones who have guns for self-defence, when they're more likely to be killed by obesity than an armed home invader or driveby shooter. Better yet, the self-declared responsible gun owners that keep a weapon for self defence. If you're a responsible gun owner, your gun's in a safe and you'll never reach it in time to repel intruders. But keeping it on your nightstand is definitely irresponsible, so how does that poo poo even work?

I can see guns being legitimately used for hunting and that' all cool and good, but why then are there military grade battle rifles in circulation? Are they for those really aggressive deer? And what about handguns? Small, easily concealed weapons, best used in close quarters; what practical use do they have as tools for anything but killing? Do you open bottles with them? Do you use them to hammer in nails when you're underprepared for carpentry but just so happen to be carrying at the time?

To put it another way, if I was to start synthesizing neuro-toxins as a hobby or for purposes of pest control, do you think anyone would let me without some extremely stringent limitations? Even as a responsible chemist, who kept his dangerous neurotoxins and precursor chemicals in a sealed, locked fume cupboard in his basement?

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but it's incredible to me that America manages to amuse and horrify me and, I'm sure, many others by coughing out mass shootings on a monthly basis and still somehow not managing to have even a productive discussion about gun control as a result of such human tragedies.

1) The US has its problems, but I wouldn't say violence is the only option for improving the country at this juncture. Chillax.

2) Why is keeping a gun in a drawer irresponsible so long as you don't have kids or you aren't suicidal? It's a dumb meme that it's a safe or nothing. Regardless there *are* safes that hold a pistol, slide under your bed, and pop open with a thumbprint very quickly.

3) For entertainment, for outgunning other people in self-defense, etc etc all legit uses.

4) It's 100% legal in this country to possess explosive weapons and always has been. Or buy a tank. I would agree that we have way too many drug laws.

DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Oct 23, 2015

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 13:13

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

DeusExMachinima posted:

Mmkay, will do. It's pretty funny you think we're on the verge of falling apart as a country, I guess?

I don't know what country you think I'm from, but I guess it's Germany? Well that's wrong on all counts as I'm not German, and Germany is actually doing very well, certainly better than the US.

I assume that since you are ignorant about the issue, you just assumed that continental law = German law?

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:37

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

I've suggested this before for police officers in lieu of body cams, but how about a compromise: You can have any gun you want, but it's attached directly to your scrotum. To aim and fire it will require the loss of your scrotum.

Any situation in which you would be justified to attempt to kill another person will surely be cause enough for you to lose your testicles.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:38

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

TomViolence posted:

I can see guns being legitimately used for hunting and that' all cool and good, but why then are there military grade battle rifles in circulation? Are they for those really aggressive deer? And what about handguns? Small, easily concealed weapons, best used in close quarters; what practical use do they have as tools for anything but killing? Do you open bottles with them? Do you use them to hammer in nails when you're underprepared for carpentry but just so happen to be carrying at the time?

Out of curiosity, what do you think the differences between "hunting rifles" and "military grade battle rifles" are?

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:40

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

tumblr.txt posted:

Out of curiosity, what do you think the differences between "hunting rifles" and "military grade battle rifles" are?

It's pbviously an arbitrary distinction, but the prevailing distinction is between shotguns (hunting) and rifle rounds (not hunting, except for taxonomically named rounds).

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:43

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

steinrokkan posted:

Germany is actually doing very well, certainly better than the US.

Actually I think you'll find Germany has hate speech laws ergo the U.S. is automatically better off. It's a part of the same "prior restraint" attitude. That's the self-defeating irony of victimless crimes. You're afraid someone's going to get hurt, so you hurt someone. Oops.

steinrokkan posted:

I assume that since you are ignorant about the issue, you just assumed that continental law = German law?

I'm familiar with the distinction between common and civil law, which is what I assume you're referring to. Definitely prefer common law.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:45

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

DeusExMachinima posted:

Actually I think you'll find Germany has hate speech laws ergo the U.S. is automatically better off. It's a part of the same "prior restraint" attitude. That's the self-defeating irony of victimless crimes. You're afraid someone's going to get hurt, so you hurt someone. Oops.

I'm familiar with the distinction between common and civil law, which is what I assume you're referring to. Definitely prefer common law.

Somebody gets "hurt" literally every time any law is enforced. And it's always because somebody is worried about being hurt, and invokes executive power as a result. You are a really lazy demagogue.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:49

Crab Dad: Dec 28, 2002; behold i have tempered and refined thee, but not as silver; as CRAB

steinrokkan posted:

It's pbviously an arbitrary distinction, but the prevailing distinction is between shotguns (hunting) and rifle rounds (not hunting, except for taxonomically named rounds).

Go learn some stuff before your bring your ignorant opinions to the table.

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:50

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

steinrokkan posted:

Somebody gets "hurt" literally every time any law is enforced. And it's always because somebody is worried about being hurt, and invokes executive power as a result.

Agree 100%, which is why you should have a better reason for having a legal penalty than "oh noes this individual might misuse something someday." :ohdear:

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:54

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

LingcodKilla posted:

Go learn some stuff before your bring your ignorant opinions to the table.

My post was an interpretation of relevant gun legislation for several European countries, so...

# ? Oct 23, 2015 23:56

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Who What Now posted:

Which laws, specifically, are you talking about?

New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law. California's SB-293 died in committee, my bad. The bill mandating "microstamping" passed in 2007.

steinrokkan posted:

The natural bad behaviour that is in no way influenced by eisting power structures. While obviously evil behaviour like smoking in public can be regulated, while other behaviour, like gun handling in public, can't, obviously for natural, not discoursively determined reasons.

Gun handling in public is fairly well regulated in most places.�

TomViolence posted:

What I don't get is how there are so many gun hoarders whose rationale is pretty much "if the government became tyrannical we'd have the means to overthrow it." And yet there they languish, in thrall to a tyrannical government.

Or the ones who have guns for self-defence, when they're more likely to be killed by obesity than an armed home invader or driveby shooter. Better yet, the self-declared responsible gun owners that keep a weapon for self defence. If you're a responsible gun owner, your gun's in a safe and you'll never reach it in time to repel intruders. But keeping it on your nightstand is definitely irresponsible, so how does that poo poo even work?

I can see guns being legitimately used for hunting and that' all cool and good, but why then are there military grade battle rifles in circulation? Are they for those really aggressive deer? And what about handguns? Small, easily concealed weapons, best used in close quarters; what practical use do they have as tools for anything but killing? Do you open bottles with them? Do you use them to hammer in nails when you're underprepared for carpentry but just so happen to be carrying at the time?

To put it another way, if I was to start synthesizing neuro-toxins as a hobby or for purposes of pest control, do you think anyone would let me without some extremely stringent limitations? Even as a responsible chemist, who kept his dangerous neurotoxins and precursor chemicals in a sealed, locked fume cupboard in his basement?

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but it's incredible to me that America manages to amuse and horrify me and, I'm sure, many others by coughing out mass shootings on a monthly basis and still somehow not managing to have even a productive discussion about gun control as a result of such human tragedies.

Do you know anyone, or has anyone in this thread argued that they need guns for an armed revolution? I haven't actually met this mythical "vote from the rooftops" unicorn. With respect to your second question, you can have your gun unlocked when you are home, and then lock it up or take it with you when you leave. People with small children can make other arrangements. Mechanically speaking, there is no definable difference between a "military grade assault weapon" and a deer rifle. The most popular style of bolt action for hunting rifles is the Mauser action, designed as a weapon of war. Toxic chemicals, Bengal tigers, and explosives are different from guns because they can spread and kill of their own accord, without human intervention. If a falling roof beam cracks open my gun safe, there is no danger that anyone who gets within 30 feet will suddenly suffer bullet wounds. Mass shootings are so rare and unusual that they represent a fraction of a percent of firearm homicides, and an even lower percentage of total preventable deaths. I don't worry about them for the same reason I don't worry about being struck by lightning.

NNick posted:

So suicide isn't a issue? Care to show evidence of the latter assertion on correlation?

Suicide is certainly an issue, but it's almost never mentioned as a justification for controlling gun ownership, and most gun control proposals do nothing to address it. It also gets into the issue of the least restrictive method question, "Is it possible to reduce suicides in a way that does not infringe on anyone's rights?"

Who What Now posted:

So conspiracy to commit murder is A-OK in your book. Got it.

Proof that a person is actively planning a homicide (which sorta obviously places another person in imminent danger) is different from a generalized suspicion that someone, at some future point, may commit a homicide. Hope this helps.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:00

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

steinrokkan posted:

It's pbviously an arbitrary distinction, but the prevailing distinction is between shotguns (hunting) and rifle rounds (not hunting, except for taxonomically named rounds).

Shotguns are not "hunting rifles" because they aren't rifles. A rifle has grooves in the barrel that let you fire a single bullet accurately over longer distances. A shotgun has a smooth barrel and generally fires many projectiles at once in a scatter pattern.

Shotguns are used for shooting clay targets, hunting birds, and home defense.Shotguns lose power rapidly with distance so you don't have a problem with missed projectiles continuing and hitting people miles away.

Rifles are used for hunting animals, both tiny and huge, depending on the size of the cartridge chosen. They are also used in the military. There is nothing special about "military grade ammo" despite what Metro 2033 tells you. Your average Deer rifle is way more powerful than your average military rifle. It has to be - to give a clean and humane kill you need a lot of power.

Modern US military rifles will fire once every time you pull the trigger (semi-automatic), and optionally in burst mode (a few rounds every trigger pull). Civilian rifles lack burst mode. Some aren't semi-auto and require the operator to wriggle a handle between shots, but many are.

(dear TFR: yes, I know there are exceptions to the above, this is a Gentle Introduction to Firearms)

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:02

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

tumblr.txt posted:

Shotguns are not "hunting rifles" because they aren't rifles. A rifle has grooves in the barrel that let you fire a single bullet accurately over longer distances. A shotgun has a smooth barrel and generally fires many projectiles at once in a scatter pattern.

Shotguns are used for shooting clay targets, hunting birds, and home defense.Shotguns lose power rapidly with distance so you don't have a problem with missed projectiles continuing and hitting people miles away.

Rifles are used for hunting animals, both tiny and huge, depending on the size of the cartridge chosen. They are also used in the military. There is nothing special about "military grade ammo" despite what Metro 2033 tells you. Your average Deer rifle is way more powerful than your average military rifle. It has to be - to give a clean and humane kill you need a lot of power.

Modern US military rifles will fire once every time you pull the trigger (semi-automatic), and optionally in burst mode (a few rounds every trigger pull). Civilian rifles lack burst mode. Some aren't semi-auto and require the operator to wriggle a handle between shots, but many are.

(dear TFR: yes, I know there are exceptions to the above, this is a Gentle Introduction to Firearms)

Yes, let's talk down to everyone.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:06

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

CommieGIR posted:

Yes, let's talk down to everyone.

This but unironically.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:08

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

CommieGIR posted:

Yes, let's talk down to everyone.

This was in response to "hunting rifles are actually shotguns"

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:09

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

tumblr.txt posted:

Shotguns are not "hunting rifles" because they aren't rifles. A rifle has grooves in the barrel that let you fire a single bullet accurately over longer distances. A shotgun has a smooth barrel and generally fires many projectiles at once in a scatter pattern.

Shotguns are used for shooting clay targets, hunting birds, and home defense.Shotguns lose power rapidly with distance so you don't have a problem with missed projectiles continuing and hitting people miles away.

Rifles are used for hunting animals, both tiny and huge, depending on the size of the cartridge chosen. They are also used in the military. There is nothing special about "military grade ammo" despite what Metro 2033 tells you. Your average Deer rifle is way more powerful than your average military rifle. It has to be - to give a clean and humane kill you need a lot of power.

Modern US military rifles will fire once every time you pull the trigger (semi-automatic), and optionally in burst mode (a few rounds every trigger pull). Civilian rifles lack burst mode. Some aren't semi-auto and require the operator to wriggle a handle between shots, but many are.

(dear TFR: yes, I know there are exceptions to the above, this is a Gentle Introduction to Firearms)

No loving poo poo.

There obviously needs to be a structured system of weapon classifications (assuming an optimal policy) that would cover all possible applications. Anyway, my national model uses separate classification along the lines I mentioned, long-barrel shotguns and long-barrel rifles are classified under different categories, and require different credentials to get a license for them.

Basically the law makes special provisions for smoothbore weapons and long weapons that can't hold three or more rounds at a time.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:10

Crab Dad: Dec 28, 2002; behold i have tempered and refined thee, but not as silver; as CRAB

steinrokkan posted:

My post was an interpretation of relevant gun legislation for several European countries, so...

Nobody in Merica cares at all about your stupid gun laws.
You idiots start two world wars in 100 years destroying your own house and you want to come and try to force your ideas on the rest of the world?

USA USA USA USA!

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:13

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

steinrokkan posted:

My post was an interpretation of relevant gun legislation for several European countries, so...

Let it never be said that we hesitated to call European gun laws ill-informed and poorly conceived.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:14

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

LingcodKilla posted:

Nobody in Merica cares at all about your stupid gun laws.
You idiots start two world wars in 100 years destroying your own house and you want to come and try to force your ideas on the rest of the world?

USA USA USA USA!

lol if u think u can make calls on using weapons without testing them extensively on the most dangerous game.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:15

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

steinrokkan posted:

No loving poo poo.

Thanks, dick. So much for a polite response to someone that sounds like a gun ignoramus.

quote:

There obviously needs to be a structured system of weapon classifications (assuming an optimal policy) that would cover all possible applications. Anyway, my national model uses separate classification along the lines I mentioned, long-barrel shotguns and long-barrel rifles are classified under different categories, and require different credentials to get a license for them.

Basically the law makes special provisions for smoothbore weapons and long weapons that can't hold three or more rounds at a time.

And once these laws are somehow in place they will gradually get more and more onerous, and never, ever, be loosened. In 1996 Australia banned semi-autos Since then we've had increasing magazine restrictions, bans on guns that just "look" like a scary military rifle, registries on ammunition purchases, month long delays on permits that almost put gunshops out of business, and now the federal govt is talking about reclassifying that deadly new semi-auto technology, the lever-action. Our NRA equivalent is useless as tits on a bull.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:22

TomViolence: Feb 19, 2013; PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

tumblr.txt posted:

Out of curiosity, what do you think the differences between "hunting rifles" and "military grade battle rifles" are?

Generally I'd consider a bolt-action rifle a hunting weapon, while I'd consider a self-loading rifle with a removeable box magazine a battle rifle. Many such weapons are indeed just civilian, mass-market models of military firearms after all.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Do you know anyone, or has anyone in this thread argued that they need guns for an armed revolution? I haven't actually met this mythical "vote from the rooftops" unicorn. With respect to your second question, you can have your gun unlocked when you are home, and then lock it up or take it with you when you leave. People with small children can make other arrangements. Mechanically speaking, there is no definable difference between a "military grade assault weapon" and a deer rifle. The most popular style of bolt action for hunting rifles is the Mauser action, designed as a weapon of war. Toxic chemicals, Bengal tigers, and explosives are different from guns because they can spread and kill of their own accord, without human intervention. If a falling roof beam cracks open my gun safe, there is no danger that anyone who gets within 30 feet will suddenly suffer bullet wounds. Mass shootings are so rare and unusual that they represent a fraction of a percent of firearm homicides, and an even lower percentage of total preventable deaths. I don't worry about them for the same reason I don't worry about being struck by lightning.

Okay, I don't think anybody in this thread has promoted firearms as weapons of a future, hypothetical revolution, but it is a rationale commonly employed by right-wing gun advocates, particularly in the militia movement. I may be talking poo poo with the "safe or nothing" thing, but to be fair the only gun owner I know personally is a German who is legally required to keep his gun stashed in a secure safe pretty much all the time and submit to regular checks by a qualified police firearms handler. While the mauser may once have been a military grade rifle, most modern battle rifles are semi-automatic and boast removable magazines and that's what I mean when I say "military grade." That other dangerous weapons are also legal does not make guns less dangerous or make a particularly strong case for their continued legality and circulation. Whether or not guns require human intervention to cause harm, I think it requires something of a naive and blind faith in the essential goodness of mankind to believe that that is enough to prevent them from needlessly killing innumerable people across the United States on a daily basis. The ubiquity of dangerous weapons makes impulsive murder not just possible, but nearly inevitable. While you could reduce that argument to including kitchen utensils and carpentry tools, they don't act as potent force multipliers allowing one man to kill a dozen over the course of a minute or less. That mass shootings are infrequent is a rather rickety leg to stand on, as even one is indefensible and they happen more frequently in the United States than even in countries with a comparable number of guns per capita, as do firearms deaths in general. Whether or not widespread firearm ownership is the root of the problem, taking a significant amount of them out of circulation and assuring they aren't in the hands of dangerous psychopaths would at least do something to alleviate the problem.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:28

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

tumblr.txt posted:

And once these laws are somehow in place they will gradually get more and more onerous, and never, ever, be loosened.

what a terrible tragedy!!! Also what a terrible tragedy not supported by evidence.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:28

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

steinrokkan posted:

what a terrible tragedy!!! Also what a terrible tragedy not supported by evidence.

What country has markedly loosened harsh firearm laws in the last 50 years?

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:33

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

TomViolence posted:

Whether or not widespread firearm ownership is the root of the problem, taking a significant amount of them out of circulation and assuring they aren't in the hands of dangerous psychopaths would at least do something to alleviate the problem.

Taking a significant amount out of circulation won't help if you only get a bunch of hunting/target guns from the law abiding, and the demographic responsible for most gun crime keeps theirs.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:36

Creamed Cormp: Jan 8, 2011; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

steinrokkan posted:

lol if u think u can make calls on using weapons without testing them extensively on the most dangerous game.

well the last 2 world wars definitely proved the euros pansies aren't the most dangerous game if there's a Marine or Soldier around.

Oorah

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:36

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

WitchFetish posted:

well the last 2 world wars definitely proved the euros pansies aren't the most dangerous game if there's a Marine or Soldier around.

Oorah

The first war was won by the French.

The second war was won by the Russians.

The marines are just a corps dedicated to retards who subscribe to the hoorah mentality and don't mind getting killed testing poo poo like F-35 or the Marine Harrier.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:40

Creamed Cormp: Jan 8, 2011; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

I'm french you dumb loving idiot, and I was obviously jokeposting.

(also loving lol at the WWII being won by the soviets, any country west of germany sure enjoyed not having to learn russian and taking the hobby of waiting in breadlines)

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:46

E-Tank: Aug 4, 2011

tumblr.txt posted:

And once these laws are somehow in place they will gradually get more and more onerous, and never, ever, be loosened. In 1996 Australia banned semi-autos Since then we've had increasing magazine restrictions, bans on guns that just "look" like a scary military rifle, registries on ammunition purchases, month long delays on permits that almost put gunshops out of business, and now the federal govt is talking about reclassifying that deadly new semi-auto technology, the lever-action. Our NRA equivalent is useless as tits on a bull.

Slippery slope fallacy. But I mean that's how the right wingers frame *any* changes, amirite? We allow gay marriage, soon enough we're going to have people wanting to marry their dogs/cats/horses/sisters/having a harem of wives/husbands!

It sounds to me like your populous wants more gun control laws made, so they're making more gun control laws. Unfortunately in the US, the law of the land has been apparently settled. When America shrugged it's shoulders and remarked '. . .Eh.' at Sandy Hook, I think we all knew that nothing we did or suffered would shake the death grip that the NRA and gun maker's lobby had over the country. So congratulations, you guys have won. Not because of 'are freedoms', but because the NRA and gun makers are more concerned with money than the lives of the people whom die because a 'law abiding gun owner' became a 'crazy psycho who got a gun'.

I'm unsure if there would be gun control laws in the US if the NRA and Gun Maker's lobby was no longer a thing, but at least then it'd be up for a loving vote, or something representatives could talk about without it leading to 'Well we'd like to discuss it but then the people who donate fat stacks of cash to our election funds won't donate those fat stacks of cash'.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:47

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

WitchFetish posted:

I'm french you dumb loving idiot, and I was obviously jokeposting.

(also loving lol at the WWII being won by the soviets, any country west of germany sure enjoyed not having to learn russian and taking the hobby of waiting in breadlines)

Congrats on your many military victories since 1918!

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:49

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

What gun would you use to kill Michael Myers?

And what gun would you use to kill Mike Myers?

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:52

Creamed Cormp: Jan 8, 2011; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

steinrokkan posted:

Congrats on your many military victories since 1918!

I don't bother much with misplaced pride in things other people achieved, but thanks anyway :^)

(btw are you that dude that was mocked for having a Dr Who avatar? glad to see you finally found 5 bucks to have it removed)

# ? Oct 24, 2015 00:56

Flowers For Algeria: Dec 3, 2005; I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.

How have you been today, gunthread? I have made substantive edits to my daily post, and I urge you to read, comment, and suggest how it could be improved.

The issue.
Today is Friday, October 23rd 2015. Some 80 people have perished or will perish in the United States of America beause of guns today. There have been a couple shootings on street corners, a bunch of suicides with guns, a few gun-related accidents resulting in death today, and some cops shooting people. A good fraction got killed by people they knew and who had no criminal record. Owning a gun was actually the number 1 cause of death for these people because the injuries that led to most of their deaths were self-inflicted, and some were shot by their own guns.
Reminder as well that somewhere around 630 guns were stolen today from their legal owners because of improper storage, increasing the amount of illegal guns in circulation. This contributes to crime in general. If anyone has got good statistics for assaults and/or brandishing, that would own as well.

Therefore the reason for gun control isn't simply to reduce the number of mass shootings. It's also not personal. It's not "you might do something bad", it's "statistically, when given unrestricted access to this tool, people have a tendency to do something bad way more often". Also, there's a reason why "we never thought he could do anything like this" is a staple of the commentary of gun-related tragedies. That's why our response shouldn't simply be "better background checks", or "more resources in mental health". All the people who are mentally unstable are not necessarily violent, and all the people who are violent are not necessarily mentally unstable. We need to reduce the amount of guns in circulation, in particular the amount of illegal guns, we need to reduce the recourse to guns in daily life, and we need to ensure that people who own guns keep them safe, out of reach, and as inoffesive as they can.

What is to be done.
It is a given that the 2nd Amendment in no way precludes intelligent regulation of guns, selective bans, and the registration of gun owners, all of which would contribute to a peaceful society and the gradual elimination of this ghastly gun culture. Here is the kind of intelligent gun control I'm suggesting.
It's based on a shall-issue policy, but with stringent controls. To own most guns, you would first need a license for them - and it's one license per gun. Such a license can only be obtained if you show proof of regular attendance at a range, with specific classes, get a positive opinion from the gun range manager as well as one from a doctor, and either own a safe or store your gun at the range. Licenses have to be renewed regularly, maybe every five years. It would be accompanied by a thorough background check consisting in your criminal record (with a focus on violent offenses), ongoing legal procedures, existence of restraining orders, and mental health, all of this reviewed by a human being and not automated. The aim of this policy is to reduce the availability of guns, while not making them illegal at all and allowing the very same people who are exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to keep on exercising them.

The sale of guns would be much more regulated as well. I could see private individuals selling guns to other private individuals, but only if the buyer can present a license for the gun they want to buy - a license that is not currently being used for another gun. Same thing for gifts. This goes hand in hand with the licensing thing: that way, guns would be individually tracked, and the responsibility for what happens with said gun would also rest on its owner. If the gun is used in a crime, a murder, or a suicide, the owner would be liable, including if the gun has been stolen. I believe that this kind of policy would do wonders to persuade gun owners to be responsible with their guns and store them properly, either in their safe or free of charge at their range. This would reduce the amount of guns that circulate illegally, reduce gun theft, and reduce crime in general. It would also reduce the amount of accidents and suicides.

A large-scale gun exchange and buyback policy would also accompany these reforms, specifically aimed at eliminating untracked guns. This is how it would work - once the law is passed, people have several years (maybe 3 ? 5?) to either turn in their gun, or get a license and exchange their unmarked, unlicensed and untracked gun for a tagged one, or to get it tagged. After the set date, owning an gun without the corresponding license would be grounds for confiscation, for the revocation of all licenses and for a notice on the background check system. This is to adapt the system to the current situation, where millions of guns are in circulation and we have no idea where they are. All this would be overseen by the ATF, probably, or some ad hoc agency.

I could add more policies, but to be honest, I don't really care about selective gun bans, or even supressors and magazine limits and such. I think that some guns ought to be more monitored than others, but I'm not going to focus on that and on gadgets if I get the rest. As long as it's on the license, I'm fine with it. Have your AR-15, have your cool-rear end handgun with the extra shooty bits, the scope, the supressor, the lasers. That way we won't get sidetracked by considerations such as "these mag limits are arbitrary!".

There would be exceptions of course. Guns used for hunting or skeet shooting, a category that should be well-defined (for example, probably based on the number of bullets they can fire before needing a reload, BUT I AM NOT AN EXPERT and I welcome guns specialists' opinions on how we could define such a category for such guns), would only require a hunting permit. Toy guns wouldn't need anything. Neither would antiques if they're disabled.

Here is an excellent point made by size1one about gun training, the sort of thing I'd like to see in my own requirements, and personal safety tips:

size1one posted:

re: training requirements.

It shouldn't just be about knowing how to safely handle a firearm. Gun owners tend to have a gung-ho attitude and that's part of the problem with gun culture. Training should also focus on the moral, social, legal, and financial repercussions of using deadly force. I don't think it's a stretch to say that people are misinformed or uninformed about all of these things. It's why we have tropes like, "if you shoot an intruder make sure he falls inside the house". And people willing to kill someone over their $1000 TV, when the average cost to defend against a criminal and civil suit, and win, is $100,000. (That's if you don't accidentally injure or kill a bystander too).

I took a course like that. It was about 7 hours in a classroom, 1 hour on the range. The instructors were probably a better shot and better trained than anyone in this thread. They told us flat out if they were in the middle of a robbery or shooting they'd just go hide, and only shoot if it was a last resort to defend themselves or someone they cared about greatly. If you want to be a hero, that's your choice, but at least make it an informed decision. I know personally the list of people I'd defend doesn't extend very far outside my immediate family. Destroying myself mentally, legally, or financially is much too high a cost to pay for anyone else.

I would like to insist on one of the points that he's making here and repost a link about how you should react in case of a burglary or a home invasion. This is important for your safety.

Frequently made points, and the corresponding rebuttals:

PCOS Bill posted:

Point is the guns didn't do it, people did.

When a gun fires the bullet that ends a life, the gun is partly responsible for the death. Not guilty, because it is an inanimate object, but responsible. It is involved. It is the cause of the death. The death occurred because of the gun. Guns made all these deaths possible. The ubiquity of guns plays an obvious role in these deaths. So many more murders and suicides occur in areas where guns are plentiful that it's not a statistical fluke, it's a cold hard fact. More people die because of guns, because people had access to guns who shouldn't have. I'm sorry I have to repeat this over and over, but for some reason people seem to be missing this part all the time.

Have a chart:

And have a link to a rather recent study. More specifically, a pretty self-explanatory table.

So at any rate - the presence of guns statistically does kill people. Or, to be more precise, it is the unmistakeable cause of surmortality. Whether it be suicide or homicide. The presence of guns in a home is actually not a good idea for personal safety or the safety of loved ones.

LeJackal posted:

Right, its the fact that all all your ideas as proposed would screw over racial minorities makes them racist. That what justifications you have for them are thinly veiled paternalist racism makes them racist.

Such lines of reasoning are pretty annoying, but they do come up over and over. I do consider them as concern trolling, certainly they seem like a prop and not genuine at all. I'd be happier to address this point if it were made by someone who actually has some anti-racist credentials, but since I'm not expecting the miraculous apparition of, like, Ta-Neshi Coates or someone from the SPLC or even Tim Wise in this thread, even evidence of anti-racist stuff in someone's post history would be cool. But anyway -

I can't believe that anyone would prefer the status quo over gun regulation, as far as minorities are concerned. Minorities are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of gun violence, especially black and mixed-race people. Actual gun control would improve this situation by a lot.
The policies I support do not screw over minorities. People who wish to buy guns because they believe it would make them safer, whether they are right or not, still have the ability to purchase guns. It make take more time, it may cost more money. But buying a gun is already an expense, and owning a gun is a serious responsibility, so people should take very good care of their guns. This is what the increased cost represents.
There is also the fact that racial minorities in general tend to express a preference for gun control, compared to the rest of the population. Do not presume to talk for them - that is what is paternalistic and kinda racist. Don't use other people as a prop.

Some people like to point out that gun control efforts in the past have specifically been passed in order to control minority ownership of guns. While that wouldn't come as a surprise to me, given the history of the US, I'd nonetheless like to read more about this. I also offer this as a rebuttal: the GI bill was horribly racist and helped cement segregation in the 40's and 50's. This does not mean that current VA benefits are racist. It is possible to have non racist gun control, and while it is good that people are vigilant about this, let's not forbid ourselves from trying to elaborate gun control policies that wouldn't hurt minorities.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but the standards for government restriction on a fundamental right are fairly well established under the concept of strict scrutiny: there must be a compelling interest, and the law must be both narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of accomplishing the interest. Banning all guns unsuitable for personal defense probably wouldn't infringe on the 2nd amendment, but is unlikely to pass even the lower rational basis standard. May issue policies definitely would fail on all counts. Registration would likely pass muster, but there really isn't any good reason for it.

(or for a TL;DR, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand")
I dispute that gun regulation would have to pass strict scrutiny, since the right to bear arms wouldn't be significantly abridged. Certainly not by registration, most likely not by even a severe shall-issue rule or a selective ban, maybe by a may-issue rule depending on the conditions set. In fact, I know of no Supreme Court case where strict scrutiny was applied to 2nd Amendment matters.
Even if it were, and while I'm not a constitutional scholar, I wager that gun control (maybe not selective bans) would pass compelling interest ("not allow weapons to fall in the hands of people who, by constant jurisprudence for decades, have not had legal access to guns", and to people who might fall into that category). The narrow tailoring requirement would probably depend on the way the law is written, and there are certainly ways to tailor the law in such a way that it would pass - and if it is argued that simple registration is too weak to have any effect, I'm pretty sure that the next reasonable step is shall-issue. All in all I think it is safe to say that the true answer to that question can only be given by the Supreme Court, and we're both crafting our theories in a way that agrees with us. I say, let us try, and see what happens if and when the law is challenged.

Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Oct 24, 2015

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:04

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

E-Tank posted:

Slippery slope fallacy. But I mean that's how the right wingers frame *any* changes, amirite? We allow gay marriage, soon enough we're going to have people wanting to marry their dogs/cats/horses/sisters/having a harem of wives/husbands!

I'd call it more pattern recognition. If something happens time and time again, it's a pretty safe bet that it will probably occur again.

quote:

It sounds to me like your populous wants more gun control laws made, so they're making more gun control laws.

Our NRA has ~170,000 people. Gun Control Australia has like 3 people and a fax machine. The average Australian admittedly is obsessed with banning or restricting things that don't affect them, so we have crap like mandatory bicycle helmets for adults, even on quiet park roads where there are no cars.

quote:

I'm unsure if there would be gun control laws in the US if the NRA and Gun Maker's lobby was no longer a thing, but at least then it'd be up for a loving vote, or something representatives could talk about without it leading to 'Well we'd like to discuss it but then the people who donate fat stacks of cash to our election funds won't donate those fat stacks of cash'.

The NRA has ~5 million members. That's a lot of people to be fooled by the "Gun Maker's Lobby".

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:04

Flowers For Algeria: Dec 3, 2005; I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.

WitchFetish posted:

I don't bother much with misplaced pride in things other people achieved, but thanks anyway :^)

(btw are you that dude that was mocked for having a Dr Who avatar? glad to see you finally found 5 bucks to have it removed)

Comment �a se fait que tu ne dors pas, toi?

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:04

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

Literally The Worst posted:

you're the one whose examples were all "why should JOB have four THING FOR JOB", you should probably address my actual question instead of not answering it

Wow, how much of a capitalist shill that you define people by their occupation?
"You're not receiving a paycheck from a corporation for your work? HOW DARE YOU CALL YOURSELF AN ARTIST." :smuggo:

E-Tank posted:

I'd argue that in order for this to work, you'd have to disarm everyone. Much like in the UK where cops don't carry guns because it's assumed that people aren't carrying, and therefore they aren't always super paranoid about someone reaching into their pocket to grab a phone or something.

I think not. Cops have demonstrated that they will murder anyone regardless of the circumstances surrounding the event. Trying to claim that gun bans will make this less murder-y is pretty non-sensical on that alone. Plus lets not forget :byodood:

"HE WAS A CRIMINAL AND BROKE THE LAWS SO HE PROBABLY BROKE GUN LAWS AND HAD A GUN!" :byodood:

The police's irrational fear of everyone they meet is irrational.

Flowers For Algeria posted:

How have you been today, gunthread? I have made substantive edits to my daily post, and I urge you to read, comment, and suggest how it could be improved.

Next time you go to hit post, just ALT+F4 instead.

Seriously - you have little, if any technical knowledge regarding the items you wish to regulate. You have little, if any, legal knowledge about regulatory schema in general. Finally, you have little, if any knowledge about the jurisprudence of the 2nd Amendment in the United States.

A deficiency in any one of these categories would be detrimental, but a gross lack of foundation in all three makes your arguments and ideas worthless.

LeJackal fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Oct 24, 2015

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:09

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

E-Tank posted:

Slippery slope fallacy. But I mean that's how the right wingers frame *any* changes, amirite? We allow gay marriage, soon enough we're going to have people wanting to marry their dogs/cats/horses/sisters/having a harem of wives/husbands!

Saying, "any additional gun control will inevitably lead to confiscation" is a slippery slope fallacy. Saying, "regions which have enacted strict gun control, including New York, New Jersey, Chicago, California, Maryland, and Australia, have largely moved towards tighter and tighter restrictions without respect to rational basis, and without articulating any sort of "good enough" end state they believe would be adequate. Several prominent politicians on the pro-gun control side have spoken positively of confiscation or said that they consider it a desirable end." is stating a historical fact. Calling it a slippery slope is just a way of sidestepping the question, "Why should those of us on the pro-gun rights side believe that any restriction will ever be 'enough'?"

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:12

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; Can't post for 16 hours!

tumblr.txt posted:

The NRA has ~5 million members. That's a lot of people to be fooled by the "Gun Maker's Lobby".

It's kinda bizarre to say that a country whose national mythology is all about guns needs "the death grip of a lobby" to be one of the most permissive in terms of guns. Australia's a different kind of country.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:13

Flowers For Algeria: Dec 3, 2005; I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.

LeJackal posted:

Next time you go to hit post, just ALT+F4 instead.

Is that all you've got?

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:13

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

Flowers For Algeria posted:

Is that all you've got?

I can thoughtlessly copy+paste it a few times. You seem to consider that a legitimate tactic.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 13:13

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

All we need for gun control in this nation is for blacks to buy guns and use them on white people. Any one of the last 30 mass shootings would have prompted new legislation, had the shooter been black and the victims white. And TFR would be arguing over it amongst themselves if not actually pro gun control.

# ? Oct 24, 2015 01:16

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gunchat III: The Gun Shoots Back

«‹›30 »