Gunchat III: The Gun Shoots Back

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

«‹›30 »

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)]

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.

Lol if you thought I'd forget to post my copypaste.
Deal with it gunhavers.

EDIT : hell no it's not going on the bottom of the page.

ANYWAY. As Saturday, October 24th comes to a close, some 80 people have perished 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!".

Apparently there is no way there could be any exceptions to this policy that wouldn't be arbitrary, according to LeJackal. I'm sorry, hunters all around America.

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.

# ? Oct 25, 2015 06:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 2, 2024 22:23

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

Flowers For Algeria posted:

I'm smiling because the 2nd Amendment does not prevent gun control. So what will you do, Cartouche, LingcodKilla, if gun control is passed? Will you register your guns? Will you apply for a permit?

I don't care if you think it's impossible. It's not.

Already have for insurance purposes. Already have permits to open carry them so yeah sure I guess why not. The state already knows I have them.

Is that going to allow you reach climax now? Did you want a more paranoid answer? I'm here for you man.

# ? Oct 25, 2015 06:56

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.

LingcodKilla posted:

Already have for insurance purposes. Already have permits to open carry them so yeah sure I guess why not. The state already knows I have them.

Is that going to allow you reach climax now? Did you want a more paranoid answer? I'm here for you man.

Okay. That's cool and good. Thank you LingcodKilla. Hopefully that wasn't too hard.

It's good to know that even though you're a gun owner, you're not totally insane.

# ? Oct 25, 2015 06:59

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

Flowers For Algeria posted:

I notice that you're still failing to answer the question. Is it because you're afraid to admit you'd stop being a law-abiding citizen, or because you're afraid of looking weak because you'd obey the law?

As sedan pointed out, it is a fantasy, only deserving of a fantasy answer.

# ? Oct 25, 2015 07:01

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.

Cartouche posted:

As sedan pointed out, it is a fantasy, only deserving of a fantasy answer.

Keep telling yourself that.

President Clinton and Supreme Court appointees Elizabeth Warren and Diane Wood will show your lie for what it is.

# ? Oct 25, 2015 07:11

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

Mass confiscation isn't going to happen. The danger is a death by a thousand cuts approach of mandatory insurance (and if its mandatory, it will be expensive), environmental restrictions on lead in bullets, import bans, taxes on ammunition etc etc. These won't worry a criminal ending a life with a single shot, but will be a PITA for the hunter or target shooter who wants to do things by the book.

# ? Oct 25, 2015 07:24

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

tumblr.txt posted:

Mass confiscation isn't going to happen. The danger is a death by a thousand cuts approach of mandatory insurance (and if its mandatory, it will be expensive), environmental restrictions on lead in bullets, import bans, taxes on ammunition etc etc. These won't worry a criminal ending a life with a single shot, but will be a PITA for the hunter or target shooter who wants to do things by the book.

Better make the statement right now then

wolverines

# ? Oct 25, 2015 07:41