gun control ?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. mongey

    mongey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,972
    Likes Received:
    98
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Location:
    the gong - Australia
    there i said it .


    I see many intelligent threads here, with mostly well rounded and courteous debate on everything that other forums forbid like religion and politics. apart from a few transgressions I'm always impressed with what I read

    every time there is a mass shooting I expect the threads debating about it but they never appear.

    Is gun control in the US a taboo topic ? Is it just too hard to debate here ?
     
  2. zappatton2

    zappatton2 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    92
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    As a non-American, I've often struggled to comprehend it myself. And I know this might come off as flippant, I'm well aware that this is not how all Americans feel (the majority of which do not in fact own guns, despite the volume of guns owned). I really think it's an inextractible cultural issue.

    All societies, no matter how progressive, have an ugly "us-vs-them" underbelly. Many European nations are hotbeds for racism, and Canada is really no better, especially with the institutional treatment of indiginous Canadians. But America, in my subjective opinion, has a "me-vs-everybody" cultural psyche. Not by any means shared by all Americans, but I do think it's enough to form a cultural undercurrent.

    A concept of liberty that implies that you are literally in combat with everyone around you to accumulate and secure. That at any moment, somebody else is waiting for you to let your guard down so they can pounce and take advantage of that moment of weakness. That you and your immediate family need to be protected within your own community.

    There is a deep hostility to any form of collectivism, I suspect from decades of being the primary direct opposition to objectively oppressive collectivism from the likes of the Soviets and the Eastern Bloc, but it's become a little too absolute IMO. That gun ownership is considered a right, while the health care required to help you recover from actually being shot is considered a commodity to me as an outsider seems positively perverse.

    But again, that is only my understanding of the issue, well that, and the fact that lobby groups (I'm looking at you, NRA) have truly undue levels of influence and access to government, really create an issue that seems un-resolvable. Just wait for Alex Jones to paint this as another conspiracy.
     
    TedEH, Edika, AxeHappy and 2 others like this.
  3. KnightBrolaire

    KnightBrolaire tinkerer/aspiring builder/8 string hoarder

    Messages:
    3,884
    Likes Received:
    1,109
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    minnesotahhh ehh
    Guns aren't the problem, mentally ill people and criminals/terrorists having access to them is the root problem. Guess what, most law abiding citizens go out, get a license to buy their rifles/handguns and the majority don't commit mass murders. Trying to limit access to the average citizen by adding more restrictions/laws doesn't make it any more difficult for criminals/motivated people to get guns. The NRA has only enhanced the pro-gun rhetoric/ how it's an inalienable right over the years, and guns are so deeply engrained in American culture that it'd be nigh impossible to remove them from gun owner's hands willingly. Laws limiting secondhand sales/ encouraging buyback programs won't work since they're way too difficult to enforce and would cost a lot of manpower/$$ to even try.
    With the advent of 3D printed/milled gun parts it essentially renders those ideas even more moot since now criminals and enthusiasts alike can get a hold of unregistered parts like AR lower receivers or such.
    It's a Sisyphean task to try and do "gun control" since you can't regulate parts/sales and without effectively regulating anything -nothing will change. The worst part is that 99% of the politicians don't understand the basic statistics of a firearm like an M4 and think that if it looks like a tactical/miltary weapon then it is. Having larger magazines doesn't stop people from getting murdered. There was a shooter in the 1970s at the University of Austin that took out a number of people with <10 round magazines in his M1 carbine (he also used a bolt action rifle). Their fundamental lack of understanding is more of an issue than the millions of weapons in the USA, since all they end up doing by making more restrictions on what kinds of weapons people can own/require licensing for is make it more difficult for honest people to buy weapons. It doesn't affect highly motivated criminals/the mentally ill from going out and purchasing weapons secondhand or milling their own parts. Besides, gun control is irrelevant when it comes to mass attacks since motivated people will use whatever they can to hurt people. Look at the mass stabbings in London, the truck attacks in France, the multiple acid attacks in London, the multiple mass stabbings in China, and it's easy to see that guns are not the root cause here, it's criminals/terrorists/the mentally ill.
    Americans are fundamentally suspicious of anyone who tries to infringe upon our rights, since that's basically what the British did to us before the revolutionary war. They forced Americans to house/feed british soldiers, they taxed them heavily (both on import/export tariffs) and they murdered unarmed civilians at the boston massacre. There were other issues but in general, Britain treated colonists worse than sovereign citizens (which many colonists were) and had a history of doing so.
     
  4. mongey

    mongey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,972
    Likes Received:
    98
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Location:
    the gong - Australia
    I am at work so cant really go into it right now in depth but I fundamentally disagree with this line of reasoning . guns are the problem . Limiting the availability of guns in the community put less guns in criminal hands.

    your average criminal is not importing arms .

    don't you need some form of gun control to stop mentally ill people from obataining them ?
     
    AxeHappy, vilk, narad and 1 other person like this.
  5. zappatton2

    zappatton2 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    92
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    Agreed, absolutely guns are the problem. Yes, a motivated killer can find means to kill through other methods, but you simply can't exact the sort of carnage that a gun in hand can accomplish. Shooting deaths occur sporadically in literally every country, but within the circle of developed nations, nobody does mass shootings with the frequency of the USA. Again, it can happen anywhere, but statistically, the sheer availability of firearms makes an objective difference.
     
    AxeHappy likes this.
  6. KnightBrolaire

    KnightBrolaire tinkerer/aspiring builder/8 string hoarder

    Messages:
    3,884
    Likes Received:
    1,109
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    minnesotahhh ehh
    If you'd read my post more closely you'd see that I address that issue. Until we can reliably and effectively regulate secondhand sales or 3D printing/milling of parts you can't control who buys guns. Even if we regulate firearms more and make it so the mentally ill are unable to legally buy firearms, they could still get them from secondhand sales or such. Unless all gun are DNA coded or something that's user specific (which I can guarantee will be hacked by someone, just like all the other "smart" guns have been so far) there's really no way to prevent second hand usage/sales. It's like building a wall to keep out people when they're already here. It makes no fucking sense. If they keep putting restrictions on types of firearms imported into the US/restricting legal sales it doesn't affect the root cause, which as I said is the person getting the firearm.
     
  7. KnightBrolaire

    KnightBrolaire tinkerer/aspiring builder/8 string hoarder

    Messages:
    3,884
    Likes Received:
    1,109
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    minnesotahhh ehh
    The truck attack in France last year killed 86 people and injured 458. If the vegas shooter had driven a semi or dump truck into that crowd of 22,000 people would we start regulating commercial driver licenses? The tool itself isn't as relevant as the person using it. It's an inanimate object. Without someone to wield it, it won't magically kill 50+ people. If you look at the USA and compare our overall homicide rates with other countries, yes, we have a higher rate than most countries, but we're also a significantly larger country than most nations. 11.21 per 100K people in Russia (144.3 mlllion people, .001% total population=homicide victims) vs 4.88 per 100K in USA (323.1 million people and essentially .000048% of total population=homicide victims) vs 1.58 per 100K in France (66.9 million, .000015% of total population=homicide victims). We're essentially 5 times as large as France, but our percent of victims in total population is negligibly higher. Granted it'll never be a direct apples to apples comparison since the source data even discourages directly comparing countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate).
     
  8. BenjaminW

    BenjaminW SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    51
    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Location:
    San Francisco, California
    Is it me, or would banning guns because we have the police, is like saying we should ban fire extinguishers because we have firefighters? I've heard an argument like this before but I figured I'd like to get some opinion on it since this is a gun control thread.
     
    steinmetzify likes this.
  9. oc616

    oc616 Control Deck Wins

    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    51
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Location:
    England
    Some common arguments against any form of gun control...

    "It interferes with my right to bear arms." - I'd be perfectly fine with the continued sale of hand guns and hunting rifles. I'd even be fine with scopes. You need a suppressor for hunting animals? Muzzles flash? Armour piercing rounds? Tracers? I understand these are restricted in various states to varying degrees, but anyone who has actually tried hunting Deer for example and thinks the subtle crack and rush of air from a missed shot does not startle the animal is delusional. Those accessories have one function. Combat against other armed humans.

    "It protects me from the guv'ment." - If your government wanted you dead specifically, no amount of stockpiling would save you from any number of poisons, pathogens, sabotage or other methods of assassination. If we're talking about the notion of a mass rebellion against said government, lets make one thing quite clear. This is NOT a Vietnam case. You are not guerilla fighters opposing an invading force, you are fighting the people who have more information on the infrastructure, layout and populace than you could ever possibly imagine. That's not paranoia, that is their job. You and your rifle haven't got this, land of the protagonist.

    "I won't give up a collection I've spent money on." - Then you are at a stalemate. Blame every other factor you want, access to this level of weaponry massively increases the level of damage one person can cause. Would they cause 500+ casualties with a knife in one spree? A Glock? I want you to realise most bombs in the past 2 years have not had that effectiveness, but also that they didn't quite kill 50 or so people. That's right, one man with his guns killed or led to the injury of more civilians than the vast majority of explosive terrorism in recent years. If that isn't a wake up call to how you could drastically reduce the body count of those mentally ill/terrorism obsessed/insert race here individuals, then as a country America just has to accept it will always be this way. If recreational use and collectors are more important to you than what literally translates as "prevention is better than the cure", then this leads me onto...

    "We have background checks." - Lets say one really bad day I decided to shoot up my office, but I didn't have a firearm yet. I go to purchase one and have to wait the amount of time required, having no previous background issues the state would be aware of, I pass. Once I get the firearm I've calmed down but keep the weapon. You know what happens next time I'd hit that point? I have the gun already. Now again, back to a previous point, would I do more damage if it was a handgun or a semi-automatic AR15? If you are adamant that guns must exist (again, I'm fine with handguns and hunting rifles) then reducing the level of arsenal people have publicly available should make all the sense in the world unless you want this type of thing to keep happening.

    "Bad people will now be the only civilians with guns." - Except now its much harder for them to acquire one, whilst also reducing the level of damage they can cause. Is it not worth reducing the chances and numbers from all possible angles? The kill count, the amount of incidents, the ease?
     
    AxeHappy likes this.
  10. oc616

    oc616 Control Deck Wins

    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    51
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Location:
    England
    I'd be interested to see you rack up 500 injuries and cause 50 fatalities by wielding a fire extinguisher in a lethal manner.
     
    AxeHappy, vilk and BenjaminW like this.
  11. BenjaminW

    BenjaminW SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    51
    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Location:
    San Francisco, California
    Because fire extinguishers definitely can shoot people from a 32nd floor hotel room, right?
     
  12. ThomasUV777

    ThomasUV777 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    79
    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Location:
    Belgium
    You just proved his point :)
     
    AxeHappy likes this.
  13. KnightBrolaire

    KnightBrolaire tinkerer/aspiring builder/8 string hoarder

    Messages:
    3,884
    Likes Received:
    1,109
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    minnesotahhh ehh
    The whole point of the suppressor is to make the round subsonic so you can fire your weapon without needing hearing protection. It barely lowers the decibel rating of the shot with higher caliber weapons. Suppressors don't work like the movies except for with .45 cal or .22 and if you use subsonic rounds. They're actually really useful if you spend a fair amount of time at the range or you're trying to make slightly less noise.
    Armor piercing rounds are restricted and you can't buy them, though any high caliber rifle round will destroy body armor anyways (level 3 armor will stop maybe 2 7.62mm rounds before being completely destroyed). Tracers aren't any more dangerous than regular bullets, they're literally meant to be used in automatic weapons to give you a better idea of your bullet trajectory.
     
    Blytheryn likes this.
  14. r33per

    r33per SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    60
    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Location:
    Scotland
    No, because these vehicles are design for the specific purpose of delivering goods or transporting some sort of payload - typically in a safe an secure manner, and typically with some productive end goal (e.g. delivery of purchased goods, transporting of infrastructure and service equipment, safe transportation of items deemed hazardous or designated as waste). In many countries, users of these vehicles need to pass tests validate their proficieny when operating. The terrible events of London, Paris, Berlin and others show the misuse of the equipment.

    Pistols, rifles and guns are designed with the sole purpose of launching a projectile at high speed such that it will cause damage to its target - in the case of a person or animal, the intention would be to maim or neutralise (read: kill). There are always exceptions (e.g. dart guns used to sedate animals in wildlife conservation projects), but let's face it: when we hear of gun we think of bullet, and when the gun, rifle or pistol is used for what it is designed for, it maims or kills. It is not protective; it is an offensive weapon. Sure, like the sword and spear that they replaced, the gun has some defensive properties, but the primary function is to inflict damage on a target. In that respect, our man in Las Vegas (and in Dunblane, Scotland over 20 years ago) used his weapons in exactly the way they were designed to be used: to sight a target and fire with the intention of striking said target to maim and/or kill.

    That for me is the logic behind regulation. It is not so much that the weapon has the capability to harm, it is that IS the primary capability and so should be treated by operators, regulators and manufaturers with severity and sobriety when determining who is eligible, fit and justified in owning them.

    At the end of this post I feel the need to point out that I am not American and that the constitution of the USA was formed out of a struggle and war with the UK; the first families emegrating from the UK were escaping the tyranny of absolute monarchy rule and so being able to defend oneself against government oppression makes total sense when viewed through the lens of history. So I get it - I really do. I just also think that there must be a solution that honours the individual freedoms of the constitution whilst also protecting from harm and fear all the people who hold it so dear.
     
    Seybsnilksz and vilk like this.
  15. BenjaminW

    BenjaminW SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    51
    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Location:
    San Francisco, California
    Oh well.
     
  16. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,969
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    The Second Amendment - the constitutionally protected right to do stuff that no one seems to take the way it was intended.

    I don't think it'd matter if another civil war broke out in the USA, and it was undeniably proven that the second amendment somehow spurred the whole thing, there is no chance in hell that Congress could repeal the Second Amendment without chaos ensuing as a result.

    So - what is the point of the amendment? It's passed down from the UK Bill of Rights' right to self defense. While the UK has repealed the laws guaranteeing gun ownership, it's become ingrained in US culture. So while we still get the right to own guns of all sorts, we really don't get the right to defend ourselves, as the amendment intended. Oh well, I guess.

    Anyway, in 1790, how would you defend yourself from #badguys? Well, owning a musket was about as good as it got, back then. In 2017, though, muskets hardly exist outside of historical reproductions and people who really want that extra week of hunting season. If #badguys showed up at my house wanting to kill me, owning a musket, honestly, would not do me any good. So, what would I need? A fully automatic AR15? A sniper rifle? A half skid crate of hand grenades? An RPG? Naw, not really. I don't think those sorts of things would help me much. A handgun or a modern-ish rifle might work, but it might not.

    But you look at crime rates where people have guns and where people do not have guns, and lo and behold, depending where you look, you can find an example that proves your point, no matter which side you are on.

    Here's the way I see it: Mental health in the USA (and elsewhere, to be honest) is stigmatized a lot. People in mental health crisis need mental health care, just like people in physical health crisis need the ER. Period. Whether there are guns or not, this is a problem and it's a point that needs to be addressed. It's related, but it's not really the thing people want to talk about. There is gun control policy in place, and maybe it's too loose, or whatever, but what are you going to do in the USA about guns? Some places disallow body armor or non-lethal weapons under differing circumstances - how is that consistent with the Second Amendment?! Like, for example, if a dude is a felon, he's not allowed in some states to own body armor - yet body armor is not a weapon. Sure, I do not disagree that body armor combined with a weapon poses a real problem for law enforcement, but if a person is wearing body armor and not committing another crime, and not carrying a weapon, how is that a problem? The law is very inconsistent from one place to another in terms of how people are allowed or disallowed to defend their personal property, their safety, and the safety of their loved ones. I think that's a problem.

    • A lot of people hunt. Are we going to take their guns away? If not, then people will still have guns. If so, know that there is a very small portion of people who might not be able to feed themselves.
    • Are the cops still going to have guns? Are the cops still going to be allowed to shoot people without provocation and not face discipline?
    • What about tasers? What about kevlar vests? Are we going to do something about those as well?
    • Are we still not going to have mental health care available readily and easily for the people who need it? Who pays for it?
    • In what ways are/aren't people allowed to defend their property, their families, and their persons?

    That's just the tip of the iceberg, though. And none of the above issues need not be addressed by either side of the debate. There is too much of a shaky legal foundation to really move forward with gun control. If these other issues were addressed in a way that made our laws and policies consistent across the nation, then it'd be easier to identify what our primary philosophy is toward weapons and self defense. As it currently stands, we have no such consistency in our philosophy as a nation, and therefore, it is impossible to write legislation that accurately represents any sort of standard. That's not to say that all of these things couldn't be addressed at once, but honestly, with the current GOP government in power, the chance of any of this happening in Congress is less than the chance of finding palm trees thriving at the south pole.
     
    BenjaminW and tedtan like this.
  17. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,508
    Likes Received:
    480
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    As with anything, the answer is compromise, imo. Get rid of most kinds of guns. Still allow some guns.

    Since Righty-Tighties have such stiff dicks for the founding fathers, lets keep our right to own the kinds of guns that the founding fathers had when they made the second amendment. That should fully satisfy the Original Intentists, right?

    I would even take it a step farther, allowing bolt-action rifles, or other kinds of large, difficult-to-conceal guns that do not operate using magazines.

    I would get rid any 'tactical' firearms. I would get rid of handguns and other kinds of guns designed specifically for killing human beings as opposed to game.
     
  18. KnightBrolaire

    KnightBrolaire tinkerer/aspiring builder/8 string hoarder

    Messages:
    3,884
    Likes Received:
    1,109
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    minnesotahhh ehh
    See, this is the fundamental problem. "Tactical" weapons differ only from hunting semi-auto rifles in appearance. Both use magazines that can be extended to hold 5-30 rounds (actually that depends on the rifle, but for argument's sake lets say it's an AR styled rifle). I mentioned in an earlier post that magazine size isn't that important since you can still commit mass murder with a <10 round mag (Aurora CO/UTAustin being prime examples of that occurring). If the motivated person practices mag swaps/double tapes them they could still put plenty of rounds into people. The core issue is still that those types of people have access to firearms, not the firearms themselves. Regulations don't cover secondhand sales of magazines or inter-state purchasing (ie buying a 30 round mag in CO since they're illegal in MN) and there's really no good way to control distribution/purchase anyways.
    Being able to put a flashlight or other attachment (excluding something like an underbarrel shotgun, which you'd have to diy or have class III or higher licensing to even own) don't magically make it less suited to shooting a deer or bear. A 7.62 mm round is a 7.62 mm round, whether it flies out of an AR styled rifle or a remington model 700 bolt-action. Most attachments are functional like sights/lights. Nobody is going to give up their bolt actions or other rifles that have magazines so we can all run around with breech loaders/single shots again. I do think that handguns are a problem, but not legally purchased ones, the problem is the prevalence of secondhand sales/street level sales of handguns. In parts of north minneapolis you can get a handgun for 100$ (or less depending on who you talk to) and I'm sure it's the same in Chicago.
     
    tedtan likes this.
  19. smokiekouki

    smokiekouki SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    37
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Location:
    Shreveport, LA
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
    Criminals don't follow laws
     
    M3CHK1LLA, BenjaminW, tedtan and 3 others like this.
  20. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,508
    Likes Received:
    480
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    Then we're in agreement that prohibiting guns that operate using magazines would to help curb the body count in the event of a mass shooting.
     

Share This Page