Author Topic: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache  (Read 30880 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #100 on: July 14, 2016, 07:04:46 AM »

That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people.

Sure.  And what you and your ilk have a real hard time understanding is that you're never going to completely eliminate guns, given that there are 300M+ of them in the US already.  If you could wave a wand tomorrow and have all guns disappear, you gun grabbers might have a point trying to ban them.  But you can't.

Who are you arguing with?  I don't want to eliminate all guns, and have never said that I do.


Given that there will always be bad guys with guns, it is immoral to strip the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens who want the right to defend themselves. 

I don't want to eliminate the right to bear arms, but this line of reasoning is silly.  Let's try out the logic:

- Given that some person somewhere will not follow the rules of the road while driving, there should be no rules of the road.
- Given that some person somewhere will speed, there should be no speed limits.
- Given that some person somewhere will drive without a license, there should be no driver's licenses.

See how silly it is?

Yes, there are a lot of guns out there right now.  Yes, bad people have easy access to guns right now.  Giving up on ever making things better because bad people exist is your solution?

Quote
It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife.  It's easier to fight back.

Nice theory, but there's a reason that someone within 21' of you holding a knife is considered to satisfy the "capability" leg of the deadly force triangle.  Someone in that range is considered just as lethal with a knife as with a gun.  You're right that it's hard to kill lots of people with a knife, but that doesn't do much for the people who are killed.  I also find the "it's easier to fight back" thing laughable for someone who has accused others about their "fantasy" of defending themselves with a gun.  How much hand to hand combat training have you had?  Ever been instructed on how to fight someone with a knife?  I have, in the military.  Know what the first rule is?  "You're going to get cut, know that going in."

You have a habit of calling other people ignorant when you don't agree with them.

I've had almost two decades of hand to hand combat training in various martial arts.  Weapons aren't something I've focused on training in, but I've been instructed in basic knife fighting and defense at a place that did a lot of escrima and kali.

While I'd prefer not to be attacked at all, I would rather have the crazy guy with a knife in a crowded bar over the crazy guy with a gun in a crowded bar 100% of the time.  You have better odds of running away, you have better odds of fighting back.  That doesn't mean it's an easy or safe scenario.

Do you know what the first rule of hand to hand fighting when your opponent has a gun and is 21 ft away?  You're going to die, know that going in.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 07:23:23 AM by GuitarStv »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #101 on: July 14, 2016, 07:09:02 AM »
Fix your HTML tags if you want a response.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5690
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #102 on: July 14, 2016, 08:37:41 AM »
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.

This is half true.

The root cause of the excessive violence certainly should be addressed.  This is something that gun rights advocates are constantly bringing up, so I have to assume that they are fully on board paying more taxes for additional mental health resources for others, more studies regarding violence, and programs to help prevent it.

That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people.  The problem with a gun is that it makes it far easier for a violent person to hurt and kill a bunch folks at one time.  If knives were as deadly as guns, the military would save a lot of money on bullets and just tell everyone to fix bayonets.  It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife.  It's easier to fight back.  It's harder to kill dozens of people.

If we could fix the ridiculously broken health care system, that'd be a great start!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #103 on: July 14, 2016, 08:47:17 AM »
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.

This is half true.

The root cause of the excessive violence certainly should be addressed.  This is something that gun rights advocates are constantly bringing up, so I have to assume that they are fully on board paying more taxes for additional mental health resources for others, more studies regarding violence, and programs to help prevent it.

That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people.  The problem with a gun is that it makes it far easier for a violent person to hurt and kill a bunch folks at one time.  If knives were as deadly as guns, the military would save a lot of money on bullets and just tell everyone to fix bayonets.  It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife.  It's easier to fight back.  It's harder to kill dozens of people.

If we could fix the ridiculously broken health care system, that'd be a great start!

Can we keep it to just one Sisyphean task per thread?  :P

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5690
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #104 on: July 14, 2016, 08:48:00 AM »
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.

This is half true.

The root cause of the excessive violence certainly should be addressed.  This is something that gun rights advocates are constantly bringing up, so I have to assume that they are fully on board paying more taxes for additional mental health resources for others, more studies regarding violence, and programs to help prevent it.

That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people.  The problem with a gun is that it makes it far easier for a violent person to hurt and kill a bunch folks at one time.  If knives were as deadly as guns, the military would save a lot of money on bullets and just tell everyone to fix bayonets.  It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife.  It's easier to fight back.  It's harder to kill dozens of people.

If we could fix the ridiculously broken health care system, that'd be a great start!

Can we keep it to just one Sisyphean task per thread?  :P


acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1702
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #105 on: July 14, 2016, 08:50:36 AM »
It's strange but I use the 2nd Ammendment in a way to actually make me money.

I am a very serious Craigslister who owns no guns... BUT in my home state of Texas "Castle Doctrine" makes it very easy to do transactions in your home.  I have made some nice side cash doing this and I might do an an in-depth post on how to game Craigslist later.

what??
Do tell how a 'defense of habitation' law enables side-gig Craigslistery.

Magilla

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #106 on: July 14, 2016, 09:03:26 AM »
I was loathe to post in this thread as I knew it would degenerate.  I will just post these here for your perusal and be done with the thread:


It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

clarkevii

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas TX
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #107 on: July 14, 2016, 09:22:30 AM »
It's strange but I use the 2nd Ammendment in a way to actually make me money.

I am a very serious Craigslister who owns no guns... BUT in my home state of Texas "Castle Doctrine" makes it very easy to do transactions in your home.  I have made some nice side cash doing this and I might do an an in-depth post on how to game Craigslist later.

what??
Do tell how a 'defense of habitation' law enables side-gig Craigslistery.

Ha. I have a whole method planned right done to the T and it is thanks to the Castle Doctrines in our great state of Texas. I did all this way before my conversion to MMM and was thinking of detailing out my Craigslist methods because MMM has made me so much $$$...

BUT I see you are from Dallas and I may not want to make any rivals :)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #108 on: July 14, 2016, 09:24:52 AM »
It's strange but I use the 2nd Ammendment in a way to actually make me money.

I am a very serious Craigslister who owns no guns... BUT in my home state of Texas "Castle Doctrine" makes it very easy to do transactions in your home.  I have made some nice side cash doing this and I might do an an in-depth post on how to game Craigslist later.

what??
Do tell how a 'defense of habitation' law enables side-gig Craigslistery.

Ha. I have a whole method planned right done to the T and it is thanks to the Castle Doctrines in our great state of Texas. I did all this way before my conversion to MMM and was thinking of detailing out my Craigslist methods because MMM has made me so much $$$...

BUT I see you are from Dallas and I may not want to make any rivals :)

You invite them to your house, decide that you're in danger, then gun them down and take their stuff?  ;)

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #109 on: July 14, 2016, 09:39:28 AM »
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?
As the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." New York's SAFE Act is a great example.  In NY state, a person can now be stripped of their right to own firearms based on a statement by a single individual, with no due process and the only recourse being through the court system (lots of time and money).

I'm going to upset a lot people with this next statement, but here goes:  if liberal politicians were willing to legislate based on statistics rather than anecdotes, on facts rather than emotions, and at quantitative results rather than good intentions, then perhaps there would be room for negotiation.  That's where there's a fundamental disconnect.  Let's take a typical "assault weapons" ban.  Statistically, these types of weapons are very rarely used in homicides--a few hundred per year.  Factually, such bans largely are based on aesthetic or ergonomic properties (e.g. a bayonet lug, a forward grip, a pistol grip, an adjustable stock) rather than how deadly the gun itself is. In terms of results, the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect.

Also, it would be helpful if they showed a willingness to drop laws that either don't have the desired effect or are abused. Other posters in this thread have pointed out the hassle it is for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun in Illinois, and how little it does to actually reduce crime.  Yet no liberal politicians are willing to discuss simplifying the process.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #110 on: July 14, 2016, 09:46:19 AM »
I'm going to upset a lot people with this next statement, but here goes:  if liberal politicians were willing to legislate based on statistics

This will be a difficult thing to do given the ban on funding government research into gun violence that the NRA has rabidly fought to keep in place.  Perhaps repealing this ban on good information would be a step in the right direction for everyone.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #111 on: July 14, 2016, 10:32:28 AM »

While I'd prefer not to be attacked at all, I would rather have the crazy guy with a knife in a crowded bar over the crazy guy with a gun in a crowded bar 100% of the time.  You have better odds of running away, you have better odds of fighting back.  That doesn't mean it's an easy or safe scenario.

Do you know what the first rule of hand to hand fighting when your opponent has a gun and is 21 ft away?  You're going to die, know that going in.

Seems like we should just ban/restrict crazy people?  Not fool-proof, but certainly less restrictive for non-offenders than banning all pointy things and boom sticks, while still allowing crazy people to float around until they find something handy  to wreck havoc with. But the USA can't even stop repeated drunk drivers from purchasing cars, a highly restricted and database recorded item, so it may be a bit too much to ask...

2.) it would seem that one only has an aproximately 30% chance of dying when being shot, in the United States. It's not easy to find stats on non-lethal firearm injuries, but the ones I have seen show that about 2.5 twice as many people are injured by firearms than killed by them (including suicide, accidental deaths, etc.) Not sure what the 'hit' rate is either, though most studies show about 50% in gunfights, the vast majority of which take place within 15 feet, or 29% closer that the 21ft (7 meters) quoted. . (This was based on police shootings, probably because they're much easier to track).   

Injury statistics reference: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

Not to say guns aren't incredibly dangerous, because they are, but they're not magic killing wands.

ManchVegas

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #112 on: July 14, 2016, 10:45:09 AM »

That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people.

Sure.  And what you and your ilk have a real hard time understanding is that you're never going to completely eliminate guns, given that there are 300M+ of them in the US already.  If you could wave a wand tomorrow and have all guns disappear, you gun grabbers might have a point trying to ban them.  But you can't.

Who are you arguing with?  I don't want to eliminate all guns, and have never said that I do.


Given that there will always be bad guys with guns, it is immoral to strip the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens who want the right to defend themselves. 

I don't want to eliminate the right to bear arms, but this line of reasoning is silly.  Let's try out the logic:

- Given that some person somewhere will not follow the rules of the road while driving, there should be no rules of the road.
- Given that some person somewhere will speed, there should be no speed limits.
- Given that some person somewhere will drive without a license, there should be no driver's licenses.

See how silly it is?


Nah, I think its more like this:

- Given that some person somewhere will not follow the rules of the road while driving, there should be no rules of the road. those individuals should punished according to the current laws.
- Given that some person somewhere will speed, there should be no speed limits. those individuals should be punished according to the current laws.
- Given that some person somewhere will drive without a license, there should be no driver's licenses. those individuals should be punished according to the current laws.

I think the position of the left is more silly and the logic would look like this:

- Given that some person somewhere will not follow the rules of the road while driving, there should be no rules of the road all drivers should be recorded and randomly reviewed for offenses by government officials.
- Given that some person somewhere will speed, there should be no speed limits all roads should have speed bumps every 30 feet.
- Given that some person somewhere will drive without a license, there should be no driver's licenses all trips will need to be approved by a government prior to leaving your driveway.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #113 on: July 14, 2016, 10:45:55 AM »

While I'd prefer not to be attacked at all, I would rather have the crazy guy with a knife in a crowded bar over the crazy guy with a gun in a crowded bar 100% of the time.  You have better odds of running away, you have better odds of fighting back.  That doesn't mean it's an easy or safe scenario.

Do you know what the first rule of hand to hand fighting when your opponent has a gun and is 21 ft away?  You're going to die, know that going in.

Seems like we should just ban/restrict crazy people?  Not fool-proof, but certainly less restrictive for non-offenders than banning all pointy things and boom sticks, while still allowing crazy people to float around until they find something handy  to wreck havoc with. But the USA can't even stop repeated drunk drivers from purchasing cars, a highly restricted and database recorded item, so it may be a bit too much to ask...

This was covered by reply #98.  I'm not advocating banning anything.  How do you propose the implementation of a ban/restriction on crazy people, and why do you think that it's a good idea?


Not to say guns aren't incredibly dangerous, because they are, but they're not magic killing wands.

Nobody made that claim.

- Would you rather be attacked by someone with a knife, or a gun?
- Do you believe that a man with a knife is more, or less dangerous to a large group of people?

My answers to the questions above are 'knife', and 'more' respectively.  Is this really such a controversial position?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #114 on: July 14, 2016, 10:52:52 AM »

While I'd prefer not to be attacked at all, I would rather have the crazy guy with a knife in a crowded bar over the crazy guy with a gun in a crowded bar 100% of the time.  You have better odds of running away, you have better odds of fighting back.  That doesn't mean it's an easy or safe scenario.

Do you know what the first rule of hand to hand fighting when your opponent has a gun and is 21 ft away?  You're going to die, know that going in.

Seems like we should just ban/restrict crazy people?  Not fool-proof, but certainly less restrictive for non-offenders than banning all pointy things and boom sticks, while still allowing crazy people to float around until they find something handy  to wreck havoc with. But the USA can't even stop repeated drunk drivers from purchasing cars, a highly restricted and database recorded item, so it may be a bit too much to ask...

This was covered by reply #98.  I'm not advocating banning anything.  How do you propose the implementation of a ban/restriction on crazy people, and why do you think that it's a good idea?


Not to say guns aren't incredibly dangerous, because they are, but they're not magic killing wands.

Nobody made that claim.

- Would you rather be attacked by someone with a knife, or a gun?
- Do you believe that a man with a knife is more, or less dangerous to a large group of people?

My answers to the questions above are 'knife', and 'more' respectively.  Is this really such a controversial position?

They're opinions, so while naturally debatable, hardly worth arguing over. However they don't lead to policy positions that would alter gun violence in the United States... It's my opinion that I would rather not be attacked at all; so my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #115 on: July 14, 2016, 11:30:05 AM »
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.



Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #116 on: July 14, 2016, 12:03:11 PM »
Why the first world only? Is there some correlation between factors other than gun laws that affect crime rates? If so, perhaps addressing those issues would be more effective and more popular?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #117 on: July 14, 2016, 12:04:42 PM »
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
<snip>

Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?

Not to speak for MM, but isn't that the point?  Law A doesn't work, so we'll enact Law B?  Why do you think Law B will work given you're telling us Law A doesn't. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #118 on: July 14, 2016, 12:23:58 PM »
Why the first world only?

It was an attempt to compare similar countries.  Countries with ongoing wars or a lack of police force would obviously have higher death rates.


Is there some correlation between factors other than gun laws that affect crime rates?

Yes.  I've addressed some of them earlier in the thread.


If so, perhaps addressing those issues would be more effective and more popular?

Yes.  So popular that you appear not to have read the last post I made addressing this.  It was referenced a second time (since you appeared not to read it the first time) in post #115.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #119 on: July 14, 2016, 12:29:43 PM »
Why the first world only?

It was an attempt to compare similar countries.  Countries with ongoing wars or a lack of police force would obviously have higher death rates.


Is there some correlation between factors other than gun laws that affect crime rates?

Yes.  I've addressed some of them earlier in the thread.


If so, perhaps addressing those issues would be more effective and more popular?

Yes.  So popular that you appear not to have read the last post I made addressing this.  It was referenced a second time (since you appeared not to read it the first time) in post #115.

So you're asking if I think we should redirect funds to stop the underlying causes of violent crime? If so, I would agree with that.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #120 on: July 14, 2016, 12:31:50 PM »
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
<snip>

Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?

Not to speak for MM, but isn't that the point?  Law A doesn't work, so we'll enact Law B?  Why do you think Law B will work given you're telling us Law A doesn't.

For example, it was illegal to kill anyone with a motor vehicle in the late 1800s as the automobile was becoming more popular.  It didn't prevent a rash of crashes and accidents.  The government introduced driver's licensing and testing to deal with the situation.

While I certainly wouldn't argue that driving is perfect these days, it's difficult to make the case that things would be safer without driver's licenses.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4775
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #121 on: July 14, 2016, 12:38:10 PM »
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?
As the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." New York's SAFE Act is a great example.  In NY state, a person can now be stripped of their right to own firearms based on a statement by a single individual, with no due process and the only recourse being through the court system (lots of time and money).

I'm going to upset a lot people with this next statement, but here goes:  if liberal politicians were willing to legislate based on statistics rather than anecdotes, on facts rather than emotions, and at quantitative results rather than good intentions, then perhaps there would be room for negotiation.  That's where there's a fundamental disconnect.  Let's take a typical "assault weapons" ban.  Statistically, these types of weapons are very rarely used in homicides--a few hundred per year.  Factually, such bans largely are based on aesthetic or ergonomic properties (e.g. a bayonet lug, a forward grip, a pistol grip, an adjustable stock) rather than how deadly the gun itself is. In terms of results, the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect.

Also, it would be helpful if they showed a willingness to drop laws that either don't have the desired effect or are abused. Other posters in this thread have pointed out the hassle it is for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun in Illinois, and how little it does to actually reduce crime.  Yet no liberal politicians are willing to discuss simplifying the process.
You are not exactly being accurate and totally honest here.  It is not some random person and it does have requirements based on the education of the mental health provider.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 07:52:09 AM by Gin1984 »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #122 on: July 14, 2016, 12:45:36 PM »
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
<snip>

Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?

Not to speak for MM, but isn't that the point?  Law A doesn't work, so we'll enact Law B?  Why do you think Law B will work given you're telling us Law A doesn't.

For example, it was illegal to kill anyone with a motor vehicle in the late 1800s as the automobile was becoming more popular.  It didn't prevent a rash of crashes and accidents.  The government introduced driver's licensing and testing to deal with the situation.

While I certainly wouldn't argue that driving is perfect these days, it's difficult to make the case that things would be safer without driver's licenses.

That's a pretty stupid analogy, given that A) we generally already HAVE licenses for firearms, B) people who kill with firearms generally would be ineligible for a license anyways (it's already illegal for them to have a gun) and C) "lack of proficiency" is what causes car accidents, and that's not really an issue we have with most firearms deaths. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #123 on: July 14, 2016, 12:48:46 PM »
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
<snip>

Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?

Not to speak for MM, but isn't that the point?  Law A doesn't work, so we'll enact Law B?  Why do you think Law B will work given you're telling us Law A doesn't.

For example, it was illegal to kill anyone with a motor vehicle in the late 1800s as the automobile was becoming more popular.  It didn't prevent a rash of crashes and accidents.  The government introduced driver's licensing and testing to deal with the situation.

While I certainly wouldn't argue that driving is perfect these days, it's difficult to make the case that things would be safer without driver's licenses.

That's a pretty stupid analogy, given that A) we generally already HAVE licenses for firearms, B) people who kill with firearms generally would be ineligible for a license anyways (it's already illegal for them to have a gun) and C) "lack of proficiency" is what causes car accidents, and that's not really an issue we have with most firearms deaths.

Don't forget the fact that cars kill more people each year than guns inside of the USA, but few people are calling for more restrictive licensing for cars.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #124 on: July 14, 2016, 01:02:22 PM »
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
<snip>

Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?

Not to speak for MM, but isn't that the point?  Law A doesn't work, so we'll enact Law B?  Why do you think Law B will work given you're telling us Law A doesn't.

For example, it was illegal to kill anyone with a motor vehicle in the late 1800s as the automobile was becoming more popular.  It didn't prevent a rash of crashes and accidents.  The government introduced driver's licensing and testing to deal with the situation.

While I certainly wouldn't argue that driving is perfect these days, it's difficult to make the case that things would be safer without driver's licenses.

That's a pretty stupid analogy, given that A) we generally already HAVE licenses for firearms, B) people who kill with firearms generally would be ineligible for a license anyways (it's already illegal for them to have a gun) and C) "lack of proficiency" is what causes car accidents, and that's not really an issue we have with most firearms deaths.

Don't forget the fact that cars kill more people each year than guns inside of the USA, but few people are calling for more restrictive licensing for cars.

I'd like better driver's training to be mandatory, more frequent testing as drivers age, and an increase in police crackdowns on distracted driving.  Cars killed 35,543 people in 2014 in the US.  That's a sizable number, and should be a concern.  Guns killed 32,351 in 2014.  That's a sizable number, and should also be a concern.



To address Chris's points:
A) No license is necessary to carry a firearm in public in most states (remember, we already discussed this?)
B) Can you cite your sources for this?

My understanding is that about 2/3rds of gun deaths in the US are suicides, and they are not more likely to be committed by a criminal.  Again, better mental health programs would likely go a long way to reducing this number.

Introducing measures like a background check for private sales would help keep criminals from getting weapons so easily.  Currently you can buy a gun privately without showing ID, or proving that you're allowed to get a gun.

C) About 4% of firearms deaths in the US are classified as accidental.  It's not the lion's share, but why not tackle the easier problems along with the more difficult ones?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #125 on: July 14, 2016, 01:20:44 PM »
My understanding is that about 2/3rds of gun deaths in the US are suicides, and they are not more likely to be committed by a criminal.  Again, better mental health programs would likely go a long way to reducing this number.

Introducing measures like a background check for private sales would help keep criminals from getting weapons so easily.  Currently you can buy a gun privately without showing ID, or proving that you're allowed to get a gun.

C) About 4% of firearms deaths in the US are classified as accidental.  It's not the lion's share, but why not tackle the easier problems along with the more difficult ones?

Sounds good to me. Let's open up the background check system to civilians so that if I wish to sell a gun to Chris, I can call into the system, run his information, and get a yes/no.  This would remove the biggest hassle of background checks (having to have, and pay, a dealer to do it) and still allow easy, simple transactions.

Restricting firearm ownership from people with documented mental health issues would be wise as well. It's already illegal, but perhaps raising the bar one notch would be better - require mental health/public officials to report people with self-harm behavior such as cutting, substance abuse, etc. so that their ability to purchase firearms would be removed.

C) - Every firearm I've ever purchased comes with either an internal system or an external lock that allows it to be secured and rendered incapable of being fired by the owner. Furthermore the NRA offers free gun locks for older firearms. So the ability to reduce accidents already exists; perhaps a public service campaign ala tobbacco or texting and driving would be effective in reducing accidents.


ETA - if the above proposals were paired with the removal of magazine capacity limits, removal of 'assault' weapon bans and the removal of the repeal of most of the NFA, I would think there'd be broad support from most of the country.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 01:30:26 PM by Metric Mouse »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #126 on: July 14, 2016, 01:26:25 PM »
To address Chris's points:
A) No license is necessary to carry a firearm in public in most states (remember, we already discussed this?)

But you still must be able to legally possess a gun, which rules out convicted felons, people with domestic violence arrests/convictions, minors, etc. 


Quote
B) Can you cite your sources for this?

"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals. 21"

Link to source:  http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/#return-note-93-21

Cited source:  FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994

Quote
C) About 4% of firearms deaths in the US are classified as accidental.  It's not the lion's share, but why not tackle the easier problems along with the more difficult ones?

Cure versus disease.  There are plenty of highly publicized examples of people who are highly trained by anyone's definition injuring themselves with a firearm (see that ATF guy who capped himself in the leg in front of a classroom full of students a few years go).  You can't prevent stupid.  And frankly, as I've discussed before, I'm very wary of "training requirements" used as a method to prevent people from exercising their 2A rights.  Kind of the same way we can't have a test for voters, for much the same reason. 

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #127 on: July 14, 2016, 02:47:01 PM »
My understanding is that about 2/3rds of gun deaths in the US are suicides, and they are not more likely to be committed by a criminal.  Again, better mental health programs would likely go a long way to reducing this number.

Introducing measures like a background check for private sales would help keep criminals from getting weapons so easily.  Currently you can buy a gun privately without showing ID, or proving that you're allowed to get a gun.

C) About 4% of firearms deaths in the US are classified as accidental.  It's not the lion's share, but why not tackle the easier problems along with the more difficult ones?

Sounds good to me. Let's open up the background check system to civilians so that if I wish to sell a gun to Chris, I can call into the system, run his information, and get a yes/no.  This would remove the biggest hassle of background checks (having to have, and pay, a dealer to do it) and still allow easy, simple transactions.

This would definitely be nice to have.  The problem is making it mandatory, there's no way to enforce it without registration, which is a very large step.  I'd certainly like the ability to use it though.

Quote
Restricting firearm ownership from people with documented mental health issues would be wise as well. It's already illegal, but perhaps raising the bar one notch would be better - require mental health/public officials to report people with self-harm behavior such as cutting, substance abuse, etc. so that their ability to purchase firearms would be removed.

As long as it goes to a court and due process is followed, I'm down with that.  What I'd be concerned with is people purposefully not reporting symptoms they otherwise might because they don't want to lose their gun access.

Quote
C) - Every firearm I've ever purchased comes with either an internal system or an external lock that allows it to be secured and rendered incapable of being fired by the owner. Furthermore the NRA offers free gun locks for older firearms. So the ability to reduce accidents already exists; perhaps a public service campaign ala tobbacco or texting and driving would be effective in reducing accidents.

A PSA campaign seems like a good idea.  I'm not too sure most people are all that worried about accidents though.

Quote
ETA - if the above proposals were paired with the removal of magazine capacity limits, removal of 'assault' weapon bans and the removal of the repeal of most of the NFA, I would think there'd be broad support from most of the country.

There's the tricky part.  Repealing restrictions. 

As I've said earlier in the thread I'm down to try some new things, but that doesn't mean stuff that doesn't work gets to stick around.  Give a little, get a little. 

Just look at the current state of marijuana legality.  It's taken decades of campaigning and rock solid data to where the point almost can't be argued anymore, yet it's STILL classified the same as heroin.  Even restrictions everyone knows are ridiculous on things that never kill anyone are hard to break, much less ones with a bit of controversy that can be used to kill people.  Let the thread derail commence.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #128 on: July 14, 2016, 03:06:44 PM »

"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals. 21"

Link to source:  http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/#return-note-93-21

Cited source:  FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994

That sounded funny to me, so I checked.  The firearms facts website you're using is completely wrong and can't be trusted as a resource.

There were 33,636 gun deaths in 2013 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm).s

In 2013 there were 8,454 murders committed by guns.  (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls).

That amounts to about 25% of firearms deaths.  Even if every murder in 2013 was committed by a criminal, that doesn't account for more than a quarter of firearms deaths . . . that's not even close to the number quoted by the website you're using.

As a matter of fact . . . of the 33,636 firearms deaths in 2013, there were 21,175 suicides (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm).  How would criminals be responsible for 2/3rds of all the gun deaths due to guns in the US if 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides?

This is one of those cases where not blindly going along with an advocacy website and actually checking the numbers seems to have come in handy.  Although the cited source was the 1994 FBI UCS (which is real), there wasn't actually anything on the FBI website that supports the claim they were making.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #129 on: July 14, 2016, 08:42:58 PM »
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?
As the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." New York's SAFE Act is a great example.  In NY state, a person can now be stripped of their right to own firearms based on a statement by a single individual, with no due process and the only recourse being through the court system (lots of time and money).

I'm going to upset a lot people with this next statement, but here goes:  if liberal politicians were willing to legislate based on statistics rather than anecdotes, on facts rather than emotions, and at quantitative results rather than good intentions, then perhaps there would be room for negotiation.  That's where there's a fundamental disconnect.  Let's take a typical "assault weapons" ban.  Statistically, these types of weapons are very rarely used in homicides--a few hundred per year.  Factually, such bans largely are based on aesthetic or ergonomic properties (e.g. a bayonet lug, a forward grip, a pistol grip, an adjustable stock) rather than how deadly the gun itself is. In terms of results, the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect.

Also, it would be helpful if they showed a willingness to drop laws that either don't have the desired effect or are abused. Other posters in this thread have pointed out the hassle it is for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun in Illinois, and how little it does to actually reduce crime.  Yet no liberal politicians are willing to discuss simplifying the process.
You are exactly being accurate and totally honest here.  It is not some random person and it does have requirements based on the education of the mental health provider.
I never said it was "some random person."  Perhaps I could have elaborated, but the point stands:  a single person's opinion can result in an individual losing their right to own a firearm without due process.  Like the guy who got on the list because he sought treatment for insomnia.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4775
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #130 on: July 15, 2016, 07:55:50 AM »
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?
As the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." New York's SAFE Act is a great example.  In NY state, a person can now be stripped of their right to own firearms based on a statement by a single individual, with no due process and the only recourse being through the court system (lots of time and money).

I'm going to upset a lot people with this next statement, but here goes:  if liberal politicians were willing to legislate based on statistics rather than anecdotes, on facts rather than emotions, and at quantitative results rather than good intentions, then perhaps there would be room for negotiation.  That's where there's a fundamental disconnect.  Let's take a typical "assault weapons" ban.  Statistically, these types of weapons are very rarely used in homicides--a few hundred per year.  Factually, such bans largely are based on aesthetic or ergonomic properties (e.g. a bayonet lug, a forward grip, a pistol grip, an adjustable stock) rather than how deadly the gun itself is. In terms of results, the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect.

Also, it would be helpful if they showed a willingness to drop laws that either don't have the desired effect or are abused. Other posters in this thread have pointed out the hassle it is for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun in Illinois, and how little it does to actually reduce crime.  Yet no liberal politicians are willing to discuss simplifying the process.
You are exactly being accurate and totally honest here.  It is not some random person and it does have requirements based on the education of the mental health provider.
I never said it was "some random person."  Perhaps I could have elaborated, but the point stands:  a single person's opinion can result in an individual losing their right to own a firearm without due process.  Like the guy who got on the list because he sought treatment for insomnia.
Given that the same single person's opinion could get you placed against your will in a mental hospital (5150 is the code) which is much more of a loss of rights without any more of due process, I think the idea that the person who can decide if you are a danger to others can instead of having you imprisoned, can remove your gun makes perfect sense.  Now if the person was not able to do that, your complaint would make sense.  Knowing that their opinion can get you basically imprisoned, does the law make more sense? 
Also, your link is a lawsuit about an error, not about the law being used properly. 
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 07:57:51 AM by Gin1984 »

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #131 on: July 15, 2016, 08:37:19 AM »
Given that the same single person's opinion could get you placed against your will in a mental hospital (5150 is the code) which is much more of a loss of rights without any more of due process, I think the idea that the person who can decide if you are a danger to others can instead of having you imprisoned, can remove your gun makes perfect sense.  Now if the person was not able to do that, your complaint would make sense.  Knowing that their opinion can get you basically imprisoned, does the law make more sense? 
Also, your link is a lawsuit about an error, not about the law being used properly.
I don't think a single person's opinion should be able to land someone in a mental hospital either, so no, it doesn't make any more sense to me.

The link I posted is precisely the one I intended.  A single person's "error" could just as easily been done maliciously, with the same result, due to the provisions of the SAFE Act.  Take away the law, and the whole story goes away.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #132 on: July 15, 2016, 08:58:33 AM »
What is hypocritical in the discussion is that the overwhelming majority of people injured or killed by a firearm are injured or killed by their own firearm, and they are the one who did it.

Nobody forced them to buy it, and it's honestly none of our business what people do at home.

Literally all of the other violence associated with guns, there is no law you can pass that will result in a short term reduction in violence.  Long term, over say, the next 200-250 years, yes, you could cut down on it a bit.  But guns last a long time, so it's going to take a minute for them to all wear out.

The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation?  It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't.  The only reason to register is so you can confiscate.  If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.

There's a west wing quote: "You're approach to gun control has nothing to do with how you don't like guns; you don't like the people who like guns."

Hold gun owners legally responsible for what happens when their weapons are discharged, that is a reasonable change I would support that might make a difference.  Whether it's Joe on the street, Officer McShootypants, the LA Sheriff's Office, if one of their weapons is used to kill someone, they are responsible.  Mandatory minimum: manslaughter.   It would also make me buy any future guns in such a way that nobody knows I own them, regardless of whatever laws you pass making that harder to do (it will always be possible).  But that's just where we're at.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #133 on: July 15, 2016, 09:36:26 AM »
The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation?  It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't.  The only reason to register is so you can confiscate.  If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.

Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:

- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people.  Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns.  This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.

- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window.  Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.

- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons.  Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5690
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #134 on: July 15, 2016, 10:05:12 AM »
The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation?  It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't.  The only reason to register is so you can confiscate.  If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.

Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:

- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people.  Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns.  This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.

- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window.  Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.

- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons.  Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.

FWIW you're talking about a database for concealed carry permit holders, which is vastly different than a firearm registry.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #135 on: July 15, 2016, 10:18:26 AM »
Literally all of the other violence associated with guns, there is no law you can pass that will result in a short term reduction in violence.  Long term, over say, the next 200-250 years, yes, you could cut down on it a bit.  But guns last a long time, so it's going to take a minute for them to all wear out.

I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5690
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #136 on: July 15, 2016, 10:23:53 AM »
Quote from: TheOldestYoungMan
The only reason to register is so you can confiscate.

Literally all of the other violence associated with guns, there is no law you can pass that will result in a short term reduction in violence.  Long term, over say, the next 200-250 years, yes, you could cut down on it a bit.  But guns last a long time, so it's going to take a minute for them to all wear out.

I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.

And there it is - hence why many gun owners view the "we don't want to confiscate your guns and we've never said that we do" argument with considerable skepticism.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #137 on: July 15, 2016, 10:48:13 AM »
It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns. 

So how MANY states do actually treat gun owners and guns in ways that make gun owners paranoid? I know California is always mentioned as the poster child for the stereotypical gun hating state, but most states seem to lean in the opposite direction.

How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?

Well Washington DC is maybe the best example, and also happens to be where the politicians who make the laws all are (and is the murder capital of the country).  California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York along with DC all have magazine size restrictions, and most of them ban "assault weapons" based on varying definitions of what that is.  Some require excessive background checks, some don't issue concealed carry licenses even though they legally could. 

For the second part of your question, it would take a lot more than we see right now.  Currently we have members of congress throwing temper tantrums to get congress to vote the way they want.  Every time a shooting happens, there is a national uproar from a lot of people about how we need to do this, that, and the other.  We're compared with Australia, a country with less than 1/10th of our population and the same land mass where the data doesn't totally support their measures.  Places like France where two separate mass shootings that together tripled the number in our most recent "worst ever" one occurred despite their very strict gun laws are ignored. 

Personally, I'd have to be confident that there won't be an emotional outburst after a shooting happens.  I'd also need to be confident that the people designing those laws put some sort of value on gun ownership that isn't an afterthought.  Well researched ways that will solve our problems (with provisions to remove them if they don't work) while preserving our rights are fine.  That's not what we ever get currently.  There's a good reason the assault weapons ban in the 90's was allowed to expire, it didn't work.  Yet still today there's a big push for repeating it because it emotionally feels like doing something productive.  There's just an overwhelming urge to do something when you see a room full of bodies.  It's understandable, because humans aren't wired to see the problems of 300 million people. 

There has to be an acceptable number of gun deaths per year.  The same as with car wrecks, child abuse, etc.  We could all live in a crazy safe world if no one was allowed guns, and everyone constantly had cameras on them everywhere they went and could only drive 10mph.  If you could achieve a 0% homicide/abuse rate in exchange for everyone constantly being monitored and driving 10mph, would you?  Probably not.  Yet there are many who hold that standard for gun violence, and will keep adding laws until the number hits 0, which it never will. 

What happens if we allow registration, and another mass shooting happens (which it will)?  I tell you what won't happen, the people who are pushing for registration now won't shrug their shoulders and say "Well, we got registration which helped, so this is probably far enough.  Sometimes bad things just happen."

What you seem to be wanting is not a change in state policies so much as a change in public perception in regards to gun violence.

I think that some of the current emotions we are seeing is a backlash against a perceived helplessness or unwillingness of government and government officials to take any actions whatsoever in the wake of gun violence. I know that gun rights supporters deride the 'doing something for the sake of doing something' approach. However, 'doing nothing because there is nothing we can do' approach doesn't seem to be convincing anyone on the other side of the debate.

You asked what it'd take to convince me they're not looking to confiscation.  That's what it would take.

After the recent Orlando shooting I can't count how many people on facebook and politicians pointed to Australia as the model for gun safety.  Australia had a gun registry, and confiscated guns in 1996.  Their gun violence rate was already lower than the U.S. and on a steep decline before the confiscation, but when the same decline continued after the confiscation everyone said "Look how great the confiscation worked!"

I'm not saying do nothing.  I'm curious why the something we have to do always relates to restrictions on gun ownership.  A kid in Austin a couple years back got drunk and drove a car through the bar district and killed 2 people and injured 23.  Afterward I don't recall seeing anyone talk about instituting background checks for alcohol, quantity restrictions, or mandatory breathalyzers in every car.  Why weren't there politicians tearfully telling the stories of the two killed, and begging us for common sense restrictions on alcohol purchasing?  A convicted felon with multiple DUIs can go into any liquor store and buy whatever he wants. 

Why is it that with guns the answer is always restrictions on guns?  Is it possible there's something else we can do to help with gun violence?  Since the mid 90's gun violence has decreased by almost 50% in the united states without extra regulations (in fact, the assault weapon ban expired in that time frame).  Why has it decreased since then?  Maybe let's try to do that some more.

France has very strict regulations on guns, yet just had an attack last year with illegal firearms that killed 130 people, almost 3x this recent event in the US. 

Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?

Unprecedented in the US because a large vocal group actively opposes it.  It's very precedented in numerous other countries.  Plenty of Americans I know would be fine with gun confiscation. 

Which of these recent mass shootings would a registration have stopped?  I can't think of one.  Even if you argue it'd bring our overall gun violence rate down (which I'm not convinced of), the only time people get up in arms about registrations and gun violence is after mass shootings.  Registration will not stop mass shootings, so the next mass shooting after registration takes place will have people calling for restriction, then confiscation, both of which are not possible without registration.

As I said earlier, the only thing that ever happens is more restrictions, not less.  You never hear of lawmakers saying "Well, looks like our restrictions didn't work, guess it's time to get rid of them and try something else."

If there's another mass shooting at a school in Connecticut, do you think they'll rethink their weapons bans and registration requirements?  Or will they simply add more restrictions?

I honestly think the reason you see these flare ups in public opinion after every incident is that because people are frustrated that these keep happening and that lawmakers refuse to admit there is anything that can be done in regards to how easy it is for someone to take a gun and kill lots of people. Congress even refuses to let government money be used to simply research the problem.

And whether correct or not, people blame politicians' unwillingness to act on pro-gun groups like the NRA and gun right supporters whose most vocal solutions always seem to be around buying more guns and having more people carry guns everywhere they go.

Thus we have these cycles of massive gun violence, followed by public outcry, followed by gun supporters digging in their heels and both sides increasingly becoming more antagonistic towards the other. Unless both sides are willing to come to the table and trust one another enough to look for common solutions and, I dare suggest, even compromise, I don't see public opinions changing.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #138 on: July 15, 2016, 11:03:13 AM »
Quote from: TheOldestYoungMan
The only reason to register is so you can confiscate.

Literally all of the other violence associated with guns, there is no law you can pass that will result in a short term reduction in violence.  Long term, over say, the next 200-250 years, yes, you could cut down on it a bit.  But guns last a long time, so it's going to take a minute for them to all wear out.

I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.

And there it is - hence why many gun owners view the "we don't want to confiscate your guns and we've never said that we do" argument with considerable skepticism.

Sorry, if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't advocating for Australia's mandatory gun buy back program. I was merely pointing out that laws CAN have a positive impact on gun violence much sooner than 200-250 years down the road.

Personally, I would advocate something different, probably more akin to how I've heard that submachine guns were slowly eliminated over time.

The gun registry would be used to help trace guns used in crimes to those people who are supplying the guns and hold those people responsible.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #139 on: July 15, 2016, 11:06:52 AM »
The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation?  It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't.  The only reason to register is so you can confiscate.  If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.

Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:

- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people.  Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns.  This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.

- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window.  Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.

- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons.  Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.

FWIW you're talking about a database for concealed carry permit holders, which is vastly different than a firearm registry.

I just figured that these databases would be linked, since they're both about guns.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1702
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #140 on: July 15, 2016, 11:08:36 AM »
A world awash in Guns and homicidal maniacs!
Gun ownership


Homicide rate


Among developed countries, US is a huge outlier on the gun ownership rate (we so special)


Among all countries, US is even more an outlier


African American males have a massive gun violence problem


African Americans have a massive homicide problem, whites have a massive suicide problem


A huge number of homicides are concentrated in just 4 cities.


Despite all that, as number of guns goes up, gun homicide rate has been going down


And most of us will die due to poor life habits
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 11:13:41 AM by acroy »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #141 on: July 15, 2016, 11:11:47 AM »


I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.

.................................

Sorry, if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't advocating for Australia's mandatory gun buy back program. I was merely pointing out that laws CAN have a positive impact on gun violence much sooner than 200-250 years down the road.


Umm... you do realize that the United States has also significnatly reduced gun crime over that same time period, don't you?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #142 on: July 15, 2016, 11:18:43 AM »
The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation?  It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't.  The only reason to register is so you can confiscate.  If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.

Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:

- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people.  Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns.  This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.

- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window.  Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.

- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons.  Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.

No to pile onto STV, since the issue with CCW permit holders already being information available to the police, but why in the world would there need to be a registry for something like this? The diagnosing physician would just say "If Grandpa Merl has any guns, you may wish to secure them or keep a close eye on him."  Same as with a registry.... but much more efficient.

And for the first point - firearms are already registered to FFL dealers when shipped from the manufacturer. The FFL then documents who they transferred the weapon to.  So there is quite the trail of paper following every firearm sold in the USA. If someone is willingly given weapons to criminals, what's to stop them from lying about it after a registry, the same way they do now?

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #143 on: July 15, 2016, 11:38:00 AM »


I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.

.................................

Sorry, if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't advocating for Australia's mandatory gun buy back program. I was merely pointing out that laws CAN have a positive impact on gun violence much sooner than 200-250 years down the road.


Umm... you do realize that the United States has also significnatly reduced gun crime over that same time period, don't you?

Yes, and such realization is irrelevant to the question of whether it would take gun laws 200 years to have an impact on gun violence, outside of existing trends.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 12:00:36 PM by dramaman »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #144 on: July 15, 2016, 11:42:44 AM »


I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.

.................................

Sorry, if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't advocating for Australia's mandatory gun buy back program. I was merely pointing out that laws CAN have a positive impact on gun violence much sooner than 200-250 years down the road.


Umm... you do realize that the United States has also significantly reduced gun crime over that same time period, don't you?

Yes, and such realization is irrelevant to the question of whether it would gun laws 200 years to have an impact on gun violence, outside of existing trends.

It is. But it would be relevant to the question of whether Australian style gun laws are more effective than American style gun laws at preventing gun crime.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #145 on: July 15, 2016, 11:50:11 AM »
The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation?  It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't.  The only reason to register is so you can confiscate.  If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.

Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:

- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people.  Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns.  This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.

- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window.  Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.

- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons.  Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.

No to pile onto STV, since the issue with CCW permit holders already being information available to the police, but why in the world would there need to be a registry for something like this? The diagnosing physician would just say "If Grandpa Merl has any guns, you may wish to secure them or keep a close eye on him."  Same as with a registry.... but much more efficient.

And for the first point - firearms are already registered to FFL dealers when shipped from the manufacturer. The FFL then documents who they transferred the weapon to.  So there is quite the trail of paper following every firearm sold in the USA. If someone is willingly given weapons to criminals, what's to stop them from lying about it after a registry, the same way they do now?

Trail of paper is right. That paper trail crosses through thousands of individual dealers and is dependent upon the quality (or lack thereof) of their document management and preservation. Following the paper trail is slow, cumbersome and possibly incomplete. There is a reason that companies and the government have replaced their drawers and drawers of paper files with ones and zeroes. While one can justifiably argue that a central database would make gun confiscation easier, one cannot reasonably argue that such a database would not provide other benefits. For instance, with an electronic registry, one could utilize data mining techniques to look for patterns consistent with folks who provide false information in order to provide guns to criminals.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #146 on: July 15, 2016, 11:59:35 AM »


I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.

.................................

Sorry, if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't advocating for Australia's mandatory gun buy back program. I was merely pointing out that laws CAN have a positive impact on gun violence much sooner than 200-250 years down the road.


Umm... you do realize that the United States has also significantly reduced gun crime over that same time period, don't you?

Yes, and such realization is irrelevant to the question of whether it would gun laws 200 years to have an impact on gun violence, outside of existing trends.

It is. But it would be relevant to the question of whether Australian style gun laws are more effective than American style gun laws at preventing gun crime.

Yes, it would be relevant to THAT question. I was NOT commenting about THAT question.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur



Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #147 on: July 15, 2016, 12:09:11 PM »
I did not intend to ruffle your feathers. I am sorry if you became worked up.  It is possible I misread the intention of your post.  Perhaps I should have phrased my response to point out that crime rates have been dropping in many areas of the globe for 20+ years, irregardless of if countries have tightened gun laws like the UK or loosened gun laws, like the USA, and that would point to the fact that gun laws have little effect upon violence rates.  But I didn't, and have thus arrived at this moment.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #148 on: July 15, 2016, 12:32:08 PM »
I did not intend to ruffle your feathers. I am sorry if you became worked up.  It is possible I misread the intention of your post.  Perhaps I should have phrased my response to point out that crime rates have been dropping in many areas of the globe for 20+ years, irregardless of if countries have tightened gun laws like the UK or loosened gun laws, like the USA, and that would point to the fact that gun laws have little effect upon violence rates.  But I didn't, and have thus arrived at this moment.

No worries, the thought that this might be what you were eluding to did EVENTUALLY cross my mind. Perhaps I'm just a bit slow on the uptake :)

Yeah, determining exactly WHAT causes the change in gun violence is obviously tricky business. And even agreeing on what the relevant statistics to start with can be difficult. A lot of people seem to think the Australian laws had an impact, but obviously proving that beyond a shadow of a doubt is another matter.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #149 on: July 15, 2016, 01:11:45 PM »
Series of random thoughts:

A registry serves no purpose if it isn't to confiscate the guns at some point.  It doesn't have to be wholesale confiscation.  But if even one person who has registered is forced to surrender their property, there ya go.  It will absolutely be used for this purpose.  Trying to say it won't be is believing in an impossibility.  But those people don't deserve guns!  Whatever.  Make that case.  Until then, trying to set up the registry and claim it won't be for that is dishonest, and dishonesty shouldn't be part of the conversation.

But we register cars!  Yes, and we pay taxes on them, and we get them confiscated if we don't follow certain rules about cars, etc etc etc.
But we register houses!  Yes, and we pay taxes on them, and they get confiscated if we don't pay those taxes.

Pass the registry.  Tax the shit out of it, confiscate my property.  I'm not an idiot, I know what you're trying to do.

You will never convince me this isn't the plan, Because it is the plan.

Based on the charts above, the most successful way to reduce gun violence is to confiscate all the penises.  Fortunately we do have a registry of those.

And yes, I definitely wasn't clear.  You could pass a law to confiscate all the guns.  Aside from it not being constitutional and having such broad support that it would be exactly as effective as speeding laws (everyone speeds, please post about how you don't, liar).

You pass a law outlawing gun ownership.  Some people DO turn in their guns.  Many don't.  The ones who don't do feel some pressure to hide their guns, and they certainly stop showing them off.

And then the neighborhood kids don't even know they are there.  And maybe the other folks in the house don't even know they are there.

And that's exactly how responsible law-abiding gun owners behave currently.  For the most part.  There are people you know right now that you know of as anti-gun that have a fucking gun in their closet.

So yes, you "could" pass a law like in Australia.  A constitutional amendment clarifying the second amendment would be the real way to go about significant gun control, if you were serious.  But you aren't serious, you don't want to solve the problem and you don't want to respect the activities of law abiding citizens, you just don't like gun owners and want to be smug.

Take out all the suicides.  Take out all the law-enforcement related shooting (setting aside that disarming the police is a real conversation I'd like to have at some point, what would it take to get that to happen and lets do that).  Take out all the shootings by criminals who were already not allowed to have guns.  Look at that number of homicides compared to elsewhere.  And then ask would you rather someone come at you with a gun, or a bomb?  The knife argument is a red-herring.  The total homicides statistic is a red-herring.  At best, legislation could impact how many unlawful shootings are committed against another person by law-abiding citizens.  It's not fucking many.  I'll grant that it is probably nonzero.

The compromise on the second amendment is that we're arguing about what caliber of gun is OK, and how quickly it can shoot, and not arguing about my right to park an F16 in my driveway.  Gun nuts would look sane in a world where there were guys driving tanks because, you know, there's nothing in the constitution that says I can't own a tank.  You should go watch Elon Musk talk about the relative ease of purchasing an ICBM.  Fuck your jetski, I want a Nimitz class.

And on the "nobody is trying to outlaw cars" front: what do you think the self-driving car is about?  Eliminating driving to reduce car related crashes is happening.  I fully expect in our lifetimes to see driving on public roads to become illegal.  I can't fucking wait actually.  The difference is that taking out the human element is possible with driving.  You can't remove the human element from violence.  We have every reason to believe that we can save 20-25 thousand lives a year by making driving illegal.  If you managed to eliminate every single gun from the USA today, you would likely reduce the total number of deaths due to violence by a few hundred.  You would significantly reduce the total number of suicides.  But you can't eliminate the guns.  You just can't.  They're here.  There's something like 30 guns in the US per person.  You are pursuing a futile path.  Start coming up with other ideas.  Get out of this box.

There's a solution to gun violence, and I think it's likely going to be the bio-metrically locked firearm.  Someone's going to figure that technology out, and then we'll get a real gun control law with some teeth.  "House Bill 2027, the militia regulation:  It shall henceforth be illegal to own or possess a firearm that is not bio-metrically locked against use."  Slap some wi-fi on that sensor so it can't unlock within 200' of a school, or, you know, me.

Also, Australia didn't confiscate all the guns.  They confiscated specific types.

I am not a gun owner and think it's fucking retarded to own guns, but whatever floats your boat.  It's like horses or classic cars to me.  They're fun as shit, I get it.  It's way easier to hunt meat with a gun than a knife, I personally hunt with a wireframe cart at the fucking H-E-B.  Nabbed a rotisserie cooked chicken just last week.  Took me three rounds!  It almost got away but the old lady didn't have a concealed license so after I tripper her I was able to wrastle it away.  We all agree that people with ill intent shouldn't have guns.  There's our common ground.  Lets figure this the fuck out already.