Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2012, 08:49 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(06-06-2012 12:39 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  I used to be pro-gun, concealed carry, all nine yards. Now, I hardly see the point in why citizens should have them. The following are the arguments I've heard/used before.

a) Self-Defense: How many people are saved because they have guns, in reality? How many have their guns used on them instead? How many people's guns end up found by their kids, leading to an accident? In the heat of the moment, in the middle of the night, are you really going to be able to make a good judgement call? Are you positive you won't end up injuring a family member through the walls of your home (almost any gun will go through drywall like butter and 2x4s almost as easily)?

b) Hunting: Legitimate, but rules out the need for handguns, as well as semi-automatic rifles and any magazine or cartridge with a capacity greater than 5.

c) Target Practice: Fine, pellet guns for you. No need for anything lethal.

d) Protection Against Tyrannical Government: Seriously? If this is a consideration, you're fucked in the head. USMC w/ M1A1 Abrams, highly trained soldiers, snipers, helicopters, etc. will end anything a ragtag group could come up with. It might have been a possibility with the colonial Americans against the British (the much-ballyhooed example proponents use), but the technological gap between the government and the people is much wider now than before.

A few statistics are useful here:

Guns were used in 12,632 homicides in 2007, or 68.7% of all homicides.

613 accidental deaths per year by firearms, out of 123,706 overall accidental deaths.

Guns were used in 351 lawful interventions resulting in a fatality, including those by police officers.

While I would hesitate to cite specific countries with low crime rates and strict gun laws as evidence that strict gun laws reduce gun-related violent crime, the US has a huge problem with violent crime, and having easily accessible guns doesn't help.

My solution is not to take away guns from the lawful citizens, but to severely restrict their sale and availability of ammunition. Any firearm related violent crime (including using them in burglaries) would have a minimum of 20 years, no possibility of parole. Getting caught with an unlicensed firearm would be 5 years and permanent loss of ability to own or purchase firearms. Guns would all have to be registered to the individual, along with a stated need or purpose. Ammunition would be limited to 100-200 rounds per person, of any one type (rifle or handgun) and after that, the tax rate on ammo would exponentially increase (to prevent stockpiling or second-hand sales of ammo). Reloading equipment would be tracked and controlled as well, with the same restrictions per bullet or round-quantity of supplies.

Firearm privileges would require bi-annual classes, with tests having an expected passing rate of 25-30%. Failure of a test would require 3 months before retaking the test. Husbands/wives/partners would have to both pass the test in order to have firearms in a shared residence, or otherwise prove that only the permitted individual has access to the firearms.

Reporting a firearm stolen falsely (in order to get it un-registered to your name) would be punishable by 5 years and a permanent loss of firearms (and confiscation of all existing firearms in the household). Legitimate firearm theft reports would require investigation, including warrants for a house search and family/friend interviews, to prove that the firearm was actually stolen.

Basically, the idea is to make it such a pain in the ass to own firearms that only the people that take it extremely seriously would bother, weeding out the people who treat it casually and think they need a gun, so they just grab a $200 gun from Walmart and stick it in their closet. Loaded. Without a lock.

Sources:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html


Disclosure: I still own a few guns from when I was still a Christian, gun-toting Republican... I've yet to sell them, as the local gun shops don't offer jack shit for them (I can't bear to get ripped off) and I won't sell to individuals (that would pay roughly 25% more than the gun shops). Destroying them isn't gonna happen, that'd just make my wallet sad :'(
Self defense: It's difficult to say how many people use guns for self defense, but it's estimated to be about 1 million incidents per year. 90% of those ended bloodlessly i.e. a robber breaks into a home and find themselves looking down the barrel of a shotgun with a pair of blazing eyes behind it and the words "GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE OR I'LL KILL YOU" deters all but the most hardened predators. If they push farther, they will be shot. Also I think the ownership of guns and weapons to protect themselves is an unenumerated and inalienable right of citizens in good standing. Also not even drawing a gun, but just the threat that one has a gun and can use it deters crime. When I lived in Las Vegas and Phoenix, I used to open carry there. A gun plus two spare magazines. I can think of at least 2 situations where the sheer sight of that gun made the presence of force clear to an aggressor and they backed down immediately. I never had to say anything, never had to draw, never had to even touch the gun, but it made the threat of force known and it muzzled the bastards fast.\

Protection against Tyrannical government: We've spent the past 11 years in Afghanistan throwing every single high tech piece of military equipment in our arsenal against the Taliban, a ragtag group of guerrilla fighters armed only with guns and explosives and the Taliban has matched us, battle for battle, escalation for escalation, stripe for stripe. This also happened in postwar Iraq, it happened in Somalia, it happened in Nicaragua, it happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan, it happened to the Israelis in Palestine in 2005, and it happened in Vietnam as well. Modern militaries are designed to face other regulated militaries on a conventional battlefield. Asymmetric warfare doesn't work like that. The fighters know the terrain, locals, local customs, etc. Also they have a lot of sympathetic people to provide them cover, weapons caches, food and supplies, etc. They can set booby traps, ambushes, artillery attacks, then melt into the countryside without a trace. Their gunfighters can match anything the feds can throw at them, oftentimes better. Their unpredictability and ingenuity make them extremely dangerous and they can be very calculated and ruthless. And by the time you have militias fighting against a tyrannical government, you no longer effectively have a United States of America as the people elected to office won't follow the guidelines of the charter documents. Sending a regulated military after them, as I've said before is like trying to kill ants with a pile driver; you'll squash one or two, but they will swarm and just overrun you. History has demonstrated this. Ignore her warning at your own peril.

Finally we have the safeguard of armed citizens vouchsafed by the US Constitution. We, as Americans, accept the benefits over the risks, just as we accept the benefits of a religiously neutral government outweigh religious tensions or bigotry, just as we accept the benefits of a trial by jury outweigh a slower legal process, etc. You want that changed? Have the Constitution amended and get 3/4 of the states to sign off on it. If not, it stays.

As for all the laws you suggest, they again just punish people like me and the real crooks think you're full of shit if you think that will stop them.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 10:52 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
I figure it like this: If men are incapable of being Atheists and being simultaneously being morally responsible, then they sure as hell are not morally responsible enough to own guns.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 11:50 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(06-06-2012 08:02 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-06-2012 07:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  Which one?
This one.

(06-06-2012 07:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please re-read my statement, i.e. " no correlation between violent crime and gun control".
How is it valid to separate out gun crime?
Of course gun control can only affect the number of gun crimes being commited. There couldn't be a correlation between gun control and violent crimes in which no firearms have been involved.
That post was primarily a response to "Why is that nobody in, for example, Germany needs to own a gun in order to protect himself?"

Well, millions of people in Germany have guns, they can therefor protect themselves. Do you really think that none of the legal gun owners have them primarily for self-defense?
If you want a gun for self-defense, you either get one illegally or you jump through the necessary legal hoops.
In many places, showing a need for a weapon for self-defense is sufficient for getting one.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 04:59 PM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(06-06-2012 11:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  That post was primarily a response to "Why is that nobody in, for example, Germany needs to own a gun in order to protect himself?"

Well, millions of people in Germany have guns, they can therefor protect themselves. Do you really think that none of the legal gun owners have them primarily for self-defense?
If you want a gun for self-defense, you either get one illegally or you jump through the necessary legal hoops.
In many places, showing a need for a weapon for self-defense is sufficient for getting one.
Since there is no legal way of getting a gun for self-defense means, you'd be implying that one would become a policeman/a hunter/a bodyguard, simply because he wants to own a gun to protect himself. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 05:09 PM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
Sounds ridiculous with that spin on it, but I think Chas makes a good point. What I got from it was that if people want a gun for self defense, many of them will get one illegally, or jump through hoops to get one legally. I personally know someone who joined a gun club so he could get a permit for a hand gun. "it's for competitive shooting" even though he doesn't do competitive shooting.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2012, 06:47 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2012 06:58 PM by Azaraith.)
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(06-06-2012 08:49 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(06-06-2012 12:39 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  I used to be pro-gun, concealed carry, all nine yards. Now, I hardly see the point in why citizens should have them. The following are the arguments I've heard/used before.

a) Self-Defense: How many people are saved because they have guns, in reality? How many have their guns used on them instead? How many people's guns end up found by their kids, leading to an accident? In the heat of the moment, in the middle of the night, are you really going to be able to make a good judgement call? Are you positive you won't end up injuring a family member through the walls of your home (almost any gun will go through drywall like butter and 2x4s almost as easily)?

b) Hunting: Legitimate, but rules out the need for handguns, as well as semi-automatic rifles and any magazine or cartridge with a capacity greater than 5.

c) Target Practice: Fine, pellet guns for you. No need for anything lethal.

d) Protection Against Tyrannical Government: Seriously? If this is a consideration, you're fucked in the head. USMC w/ M1A1 Abrams, highly trained soldiers, snipers, helicopters, etc. will end anything a ragtag group could come up with. It might have been a possibility with the colonial Americans against the British (the much-ballyhooed example proponents use), but the technological gap between the government and the people is much wider now than before.

A few statistics are useful here:

Guns were used in 12,632 homicides in 2007, or 68.7% of all homicides.

613 accidental deaths per year by firearms, out of 123,706 overall accidental deaths.

Guns were used in 351 lawful interventions resulting in a fatality, including those by police officers.

While I would hesitate to cite specific countries with low crime rates and strict gun laws as evidence that strict gun laws reduce gun-related violent crime, the US has a huge problem with violent crime, and having easily accessible guns doesn't help.

My solution is not to take away guns from the lawful citizens, but to severely restrict their sale and availability of ammunition. Any firearm related violent crime (including using them in burglaries) would have a minimum of 20 years, no possibility of parole. Getting caught with an unlicensed firearm would be 5 years and permanent loss of ability to own or purchase firearms. Guns would all have to be registered to the individual, along with a stated need or purpose. Ammunition would be limited to 100-200 rounds per person, of any one type (rifle or handgun) and after that, the tax rate on ammo would exponentially increase (to prevent stockpiling or second-hand sales of ammo). Reloading equipment would be tracked and controlled as well, with the same restrictions per bullet or round-quantity of supplies.

Firearm privileges would require bi-annual classes, with tests having an expected passing rate of 25-30%. Failure of a test would require 3 months before retaking the test. Husbands/wives/partners would have to both pass the test in order to have firearms in a shared residence, or otherwise prove that only the permitted individual has access to the firearms.

Reporting a firearm stolen falsely (in order to get it un-registered to your name) would be punishable by 5 years and a permanent loss of firearms (and confiscation of all existing firearms in the household). Legitimate firearm theft reports would require investigation, including warrants for a house search and family/friend interviews, to prove that the firearm was actually stolen.

Basically, the idea is to make it such a pain in the ass to own firearms that only the people that take it extremely seriously would bother, weeding out the people who treat it casually and think they need a gun, so they just grab a $200 gun from Walmart and stick it in their closet. Loaded. Without a lock.

Sources:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html


Disclosure: I still own a few guns from when I was still a Christian, gun-toting Republican... I've yet to sell them, as the local gun shops don't offer jack shit for them (I can't bear to get ripped off) and I won't sell to individuals (that would pay roughly 25% more than the gun shops). Destroying them isn't gonna happen, that'd just make my wallet sad :'(
Self defense: It's difficult to say how many people use guns for self defense, but it's estimated to be about 1 million incidents per year.

That number is from a survey done in 1993 by a Dr. Kleck. It's hardly scientific and has a huge margin of error. I'd trust it as far as I'd be able to throw Dr. Kleck. Some of the numerous problems would be confirmation bias on the part of the respondents (did someone actually back down because they saw the gun or did they not have the intention to rob you in the first place?).

(06-06-2012 08:49 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  90% of those ended bloodlessly i.e. a robber breaks into a home and find themselves looking down the barrel of a shotgun with a pair of blazing eyes behind it and the words "GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE OR I'LL KILL YOU" deters all but the most hardened predators.

You vastly oversimplify what would actually happen should you find an intruder in your house. You will probably be groggy, have difficulty aiming (unadjusted eyes, either from flipping on the lights or not having your "night eyes" yet), and determining who the target is (family member on late night bathroom visit). If you miss the first shot or two, you're not going to be able to make followup shots very easy as you're eyesight will have spots from the muzzle flash and you'll probably be shaken from firing a weapon indoors. Do you actually know how loud a gun is indoors, without earplugs? Will you freeze if you end up in that situation? Hard to know, but the fact that only 215 people were legally killed in self defense using a firearm in 2009 points to the fact that this situation is rare. How many would-be robbers ran away? How many got away? How many killed the homeowner with their gun or even the homeowner's own gun? How many would have run away even if confronted with a baseball bat instead? It's not a simple calculation, not is it necessarily common enough to be the sole reason for owning a gun.

The problem with keeping a gun for home protection and self defense is that the necessary precautions to keep it from being accessed by kids or others reduces its usefulness in protecting you.

(06-06-2012 08:49 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  If they push farther, they will be shot. Also I think the ownership of guns and weapons to protect themselves is an unenumerated and inalienable right of citizens in good standing. Also not even drawing a gun, but just the threat that one has a gun and can use it deters crime. When I lived in Las Vegas and Phoenix, I used to open carry there. A gun plus two spare magazines. I can think of at least 2 situations where the sheer sight of that gun made the presence of force clear to an aggressor and they backed down immediately. I never had to say anything, never had to draw, never had to even touch the gun, but it made the threat of force known and it muzzled the bastards fast.\

You also probably scared everyone around you. Not everyone knows it's legal or would understand why you would need one to be safe.

(06-06-2012 08:49 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Protection against Tyrannical government: We've spent the past 11 years in Afghanistan throwing every single high tech piece of military equipment in our arsenal against the Taliban, a ragtag group of guerrilla fighters armed only with guns and explosives and the Taliban has matched us, battle for battle, escalation for escalation, stripe for stripe. This also happened in postwar Iraq, it happened in Somalia, it happened in Nicaragua, it happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan, it happened to the Israelis in Palestine in 2005, and it happened in Vietnam as well. Modern militaries are designed to face other regulated militaries on a conventional battlefield. Asymmetric warfare doesn't work like that. The fighters know the terrain, locals, local customs, etc. Also they have a lot of sympathetic people to provide them cover, weapons caches, food and supplies, etc. They can set booby traps, ambushes, artillery attacks, then melt into the countryside without a trace. Their gunfighters can match anything the feds can throw at them, oftentimes better. Their unpredictability and ingenuity make them extremely dangerous and they can be very calculated and ruthless. And by the time you have militias fighting against a tyrannical government, you no longer effectively have a United States of America as the people elected to office won't follow the guidelines of the charter documents. Sending a regulated military after them, as I've said before is like trying to kill ants with a pile driver; you'll squash one or two, but they will swarm and just overrun you. History has demonstrated this. Ignore her warning at your own peril.

Afghan militants killed: 8,587
Afghan civilians killed: 8,813
U.S. soldiers killed: 1,140
Contractors & other soldiers killed: 1,170

Yes, the Afghans are "winning"... You really think they'd survive a 1:7.5 kill:death ratio? We could easily quash all the terrorists, the only problem is that'd require wiping out most of the civilians too (we're already doing quite the job of that...) If the roles were reversed (which is what it'd be for US citizens to be trying to overthrow their government), it'd be no-contest. Your goal would have to be taking the country by force, not blowing up a few troops here and there (and getting 7 of your guys killed for every one of them, while you're at it). If it comes to a situation where firearm ownership is even remotely required to defend against a tyrannical government, the US would already be down shit creek...

(06-06-2012 08:49 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Finally we have the safeguard of armed citizens vouchsafed by the US Constitution. We, as Americans, accept the benefits over the risks, just as we accept the benefits of a religiously neutral government outweigh religious tensions or bigotry, just as we accept the benefits of a trial by jury outweigh a slower legal process, etc. You want that changed? Have the Constitution amended and get 3/4 of the states to sign off on it. If not, it stays.

As for all the laws you suggest, they again just punish people like me and the real crooks think you're full of shit if you think that will stop them.

Do you know where most crooks get their weapons? Straw sales, corrupt dealers and by stealing them. Outlaw or severely restrict sales of guns and you're cutting down on the first two. Fewer gun sales --> straw sales are more difficult, corrupt dealers have less supply - I'd also require FFLs to have inspections of their premises (to prove they are legitimate businesses) and audits of all their records of sale. I'd get rid of the garage FFL dealers... Sorry, but not worth the access to guns from corrupt dealers. Theft of guns is a very small percentage of overall gun trafficking.

I absolutely don't mind law-abiding citizens owning guns for self-defense, hunting or other reasons, but the first reason is way overblown by gun owners and the second reason precludes the need for guns like the AR-15 and S&W 7" .45 revolver codpiece. If my kind of laws were to be enacted, you'd still be able to own a gun. As far as concealed carry is concerned, I'm fine with it - as long as the necessary training is stringent.

I'm not talking about outlawing them altogether or requiring weekly classes, just a good number of classes to make sure people are actually educated about what they're doing and serious enough about it to actually learn. Right now, it seems like any yokel without a felony can just walk into Wally World, buy a pistol and wait 30 minutes, there you go. No training, no actual requirement to know how to secure it and keep it from being found by a kid, no training in laws, nothing. Guns are serious, they need to be treated as such. For someone like you that is obviously passionate about them, you probably wouldn't be all that bothered and would likely know 90% of the material already. The idea is to dissuade or educate the casual yokel that ends up leaving a gun unsecured and gets their 11 year old son killed: http://www.johnpricelawfirm.com/blog/201...dent.shtml

I don't necessarily disagree with you about the usefulness of a gun in self defense or the fact that superior military strength doesn't always win the war, but I don't think that defense is as clear-cut and simple as you paint it. The militia/citizens vs. the US military situation is tough to call and would almost depend simply on the situation (How likely are marines to defect? How much support does the uprising vs. the government have? Is there more than one group fighting against the government/each other? Would other countries step in and intervene for either side? Would other countries take advantage and step in to take control? etc. etc.) I know a lot more about guns than you might think... I've owned them for a while and still have a few. Hell, I might have more than you do... I just keep them all in a safe, locked away from access by anyone but me. I don't have one near for self-defense in my home, since my area is very safe (avg. income is >$100k/year in my county, not too many thugs lol).

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Azaraith's post
06-06-2012, 08:25 PM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(06-06-2012 04:59 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-06-2012 11:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  That post was primarily a response to "Why is that nobody in, for example, Germany needs to own a gun in order to protect himself?"

Well, millions of people in Germany have guns, they can therefor protect themselves. Do you really think that none of the legal gun owners have them primarily for self-defense?
If you want a gun for self-defense, you either get one illegally or you jump through the necessary legal hoops.
In many places, showing a need for a weapon for self-defense is sufficient for getting one.
Since there is no legal way of getting a gun for self-defense means, you'd be implying that one would become a policeman/a hunter/a bodyguard, simply because he wants to own a gun to protect himself. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?
No, you left out target shooting, joining a shooting club. And don't forget getting one illegally. There are more guns possessed illegally than legally in Germany. And probably many or most countries.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2012, 03:59 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(06-06-2012 08:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you left out target shooting, joining a shooting club. And don't forget getting one illegally. There are more guns possessed illegally than legally in Germany. And probably many or most countries.
That's true, but neither of us can prove for what reason they got one illegaly. Fine, some of them probably joined the shooting club or bought a gun illegaly for self-defense, but I doubt that this is the majority.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2012, 05:38 AM
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(07-06-2012 03:59 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-06-2012 08:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you left out target shooting, joining a shooting club. And don't forget getting one illegally. There are more guns possessed illegally than legally in Germany. And probably many or most countries.
That's true, but neither of us can prove for what reason they got one illegaly. Fine, some of them probably joined the shooting club or bought a gun illegaly for self-defense, but I doubt that this is the majority.
As I said, I was responding to the statement that "nobody in, for example, Germany ...".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2012, 06:52 AM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2012 06:58 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Gun Control (is Bullshit?)
(07-06-2012 05:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  As I said, I was responding to the statement that "nobody in, for example, Germany ...".
I said that nobody needs a gun to protect himself. The fact that people think they need one doesn't change anything at that, does it? You do not need a gun to protect yourself in Germany, because the security is already very high. I've never met anyone who owns a gun or someone who thinks that owning a gun is necessary in this country. I do not intend to generalize the American people, but the majority of people who claim that they need to own a gun to protect themselves seem to come from the U.S.A.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: