Gun Bans

[Alowwvia]

How much longer do we have to keep this up until you provide proof I used any fallacy at all?

A computer cannot kill people, that's why they aren't already regulated like guns are. To use computers in an analogy as if they were guns is therefore a false equivalency.

Really? A faster computer could also be an instrument to, say, hack into a Pentagon server, and release information that kills American soldiers abroad. Limiting people to slow computers will, thus, stop people from hacking into government servers.

/guncontrollogic

[Frisivisia]

A computer cannot kill people, that's why they aren't already regulated like guns are. To use computers in an analogy as if they were guns is therefore a false equivalency.

Really? A faster computer could also be an instrument to, say, hack into a Pentagon server, and release information that kills American soldiers abroad. Limiting people to slow computers will, thus, stop people from hacking into government servers.

/guncontrollogic

Except that computers don't work that way, and guns do. Thanks for playing Know Your Fallacies, you'll receive your consolation prize in the mail.

[AiliailiA]

No. It is the responsibility of the owner of the gun, not to sell it to a criminal or lunatic.

If it wasn't, there would be no limitation on criminals buying a gun. All they'd have to do is offer the market price, in a private sale, and they could get a gun for the exact same price and a lot less paper-trail than a legal buyer would need to buy from a legal (and regulated) gun dealer.

"Criminals will always be able to get a gun" follows directly from what you say: the seller can take the money for the gun with no sense of guilt, nor legal responsibility, and all responsibility falls on the buyer of the weapon. That is how criminals get guns.

And that is why I say that people like you should be limited in how many guns they may own. I don't give a damn what your dad did, live your own life and take responsibility for your own choices. If you ever sold a gun to a criminal, I consider you a criminal. Even if you didn't know their criminal record ... because you should have known that before selling to them.

That's like saying

"Nobody NEEDS a computer with more than 1GB of hardrive space, or an internet connection faster than 50.0 mbs, so we're going to restrict it to that to cut down on online piracy."

It's bullshit. There should be no limit on the amount of THINGS I wish to own. I should be allowed to own as many as I choose to buy, because this is America, dammit.

Shit like that make me so glad I'm not American.

If one in a hundred legally certified gun owners sell 1 gun to a criminal (or otherwise disqualified person like a child, or certified mentally ill person) that's one in a hundred of the legally sold guns. With a limit of one legal gun per person, that would be 1 gun in the hands of a criminal for 98 guns in the hands of law-abiding people (note that the legally-certified buyer who sold to a criminal is not a law abiding citizen, but also no longer has a gun). That wouldn't be a problem.

If one in hundred legally certified gun owners sell twenty or thirty guns to criminals, that's a much bigger problem. They'll get caught, perhaps, but what does it matter? One more person to punish. No way of undoing the harm they did.

[Big Jim P]

That's like saying

"Nobody NEEDS a computer with more than 1GB of hardrive space, or an internet connection faster than 50.0 mbs, so we're going to restrict it to that to cut down on online piracy."

It's bullshit. There should be no limit on the amount of THINGS I wish to own. I should be allowed to own as many as I choose to buy, because this is America, dammit.

Shit like that make me so glad I'm not American.

If one in a hundred legally certified gun owners sell 1 gun to a criminal (or otherwise disqualified person like a child, or certified mentally ill person) that's one in a hundred of the legally sold guns. With a limit of one legal gun per person, that would be 1 gun in the hands of a criminal for 98 guns in the hands of law-abiding people (note that the legally-certified buyer who sold to a criminal is not a law abiding citizen, but also no longer has a gun). That wouldn't be a problem.

If one in hundred legally certified gun owners sell twenty or thirty guns to criminals, that's a much bigger problem. They'll get caught, perhaps, but what does it matter? One more person to punish. No way of undoing the harm they did.

You are still assuming that just because one can break the law, one will break the law.

[Alowwvia]

That's like saying

"Nobody NEEDS a computer with more than 1GB of hardrive space, or an internet connection faster than 50.0 mbs, so we're going to restrict it to that to cut down on online piracy."

It's bullshit. There should be no limit on the amount of THINGS I wish to own. I should be allowed to own as many as I choose to buy, because this is America, dammit.

Shit like that make me so glad I'm not American.

If one in a hundred legally certified gun owners sell 1 gun to a criminal (or otherwise disqualified person like a child, or certified mentally ill person) that's one in a hundred of the legally sold guns. With a limit of one legal gun per person, that would be 1 gun in the hands of a criminal for 98 guns in the hands of law-abiding people (note that the legally-certified buyer who sold to a criminal is not a law abiding citizen, but also no longer has a gun). That wouldn't be a problem.

If one in hundred legally certified gun owners sell twenty or thirty guns to criminals, that's a much bigger problem. They'll get caught, perhaps, but what does it matter? One more person to punish. No way of undoing the harm they did.

Then why don't we just make it illegal to sell guns without making it a public transaction, then? Part of being a responsible gun owner is making sure weapons you bought never fall into the wrong hands, so there should be a process for gun owners to be able to safely sell their firearms to prospective buyers, while also keeping a public record of the transaction.

[Ecans]

Thanks for the thoughtful and informative answer. I hadn't thought of varmint control and I can see why a large magazine coupled with a fast cycling semi-auto makes sense. I didn't think that they were very accurate past 200 yards though. I also believed that the original AR15 was designed as a survival weapon for downed Air Force pilots.

A bit of a brain cramp there...I do know the difference between a magazine and a clip. A 30 round clip would indeed be a bit unwieldy.

Your reference to the Lee-Enfield SMLE refers, I think, to what the British Army called the "mad minute". The object was to get 15+ aimed shots out in a minute. Many exceeded this and could manage 30+. I own a Lee-Enfield .303 and believe me it would take a robot with a very tough shoulder to get 100 off. That's 10 full mags. With the standard full metal jacket round the damn thing kicks like a mule! Especially if one shortens it and cuts the stock back in order to "sporterize" it. Of course FMJ rounds are just for play, hunting loads are usually a lot lighter.

If my Day Z knowledge holds true in the real-gun-iverse, the Lee Enfield is also loud as all hell.

Oh yeah, the FMJ round makes a hell of a pop. Hardly ever used at an indoor range. The Germans of both wars had no trouble distinguishing the .303 from their Mauser. The US Springfield did confuse them tho.

[Big Jim P]

Shit like that make me so glad I'm not American.

If one in a hundred legally certified gun owners sell 1 gun to a criminal (or otherwise disqualified person like a child, or certified mentally ill person) that's one in a hundred of the legally sold guns. With a limit of one legal gun per person, that would be 1 gun in the hands of a criminal for 98 guns in the hands of law-abiding people (note that the legally-certified buyer who sold to a criminal is not a law abiding citizen, but also no longer has a gun). That wouldn't be a problem.

If one in hundred legally certified gun owners sell twenty or thirty guns to criminals, that's a much bigger problem. They'll get caught, perhaps, but what does it matter? One more person to punish. No way of undoing the harm they did.

Then why don't we just make it illegal to sell guns without making it a public transaction, then? Part of being a responsible gun owner is making sure weapons you bought never fall into the wrong hands, so there should be a process for gun owners to be able to safely sell their firearms to prospective buyers, while also keeping a public record of the transaction.

Issue a receipt signed by both parties upon the sale, and the seller is then covered.

[Alowwvia]

Really? A faster computer could also be an instrument to, say, hack into a Pentagon server, and release information that kills American soldiers abroad. Limiting people to slow computers will, thus, stop people from hacking into government servers.

/guncontrollogic

Except that computers don't work that way, and guns do. Thanks for playing Know Your Fallacies, you'll receive your consolation prize in the mail.

Oh they don't, do they?

Now you know how people who know jack and shit about guns feel when people start talking about 'duh assult wepons wiff da high capacity baby-killing clipz'.

[Frisivisia]

Shit like that make me so glad I'm not American.

If one in a hundred legally certified gun owners sell 1 gun to a criminal (or otherwise disqualified person like a child, or certified mentally ill person) that's one in a hundred of the legally sold guns. With a limit of one legal gun per person, that would be 1 gun in the hands of a criminal for 98 guns in the hands of law-abiding people (note that the legally-certified buyer who sold to a criminal is not a law abiding citizen, but also no longer has a gun). That wouldn't be a problem.

If one in hundred legally certified gun owners sell twenty or thirty guns to criminals, that's a much bigger problem. They'll get caught, perhaps, but what does it matter? One more person to punish. No way of undoing the harm they did.

You are still assuming that just because one can break the law, one will break the law.

Are you suggesting that Responsible Gun Owners from say... Indiana never sell their guns to criminals in say... Chicago, increasing the gun violence dramatically and also providing those who don't wish for there to be more regulation on firearms with an example to point and and laugh "Hah! Chicago has tons of crime, so gun control can't work!"?

[Curiosityness]

Banning all guns would be too far and then again letting every weapon open to the public is kinda dangerous itself so banning only automatic weapons or assault rifles is reasonable

[Big Jim P]

No. It is the responsibility of the criminal or mentally ill not to try and by the gun in the first place.

No. It is the responsibility of the owner of the gun, not to sell it to a criminal or lunatic.

If it wasn't, there would be no limitation on criminals buying a gun. All they'd have to do is offer the market price, in a private sale, and they could get a gun for the exact same price and a lot less paper-trail than a legal buyer would need to buy from a legal (and regulated) gun dealer.

"Criminals will always be able to get a gun" follows directly from what you say: the seller can take the money for the gun with no sense of guilt, nor legal responsibility, and all responsibility falls on the buyer of the weapon. That is how criminals get guns.

And that is why I say that people like you should be limited in how many guns they may own. I don't give a damn what your dad did, live your own life and take responsibility for your own choices. If you ever sold a gun to a criminal, I consider you a criminal. Even if you didn't know their criminal record ... because you should have known that before selling to them.

If I ever KNOWINGLY sold a gun to a criminal, I would be a criminal. I however do not automatically assume that everyone who wants to own a gun is a criminal (as you apparently do). In fact, due to the statistics, I am fairly certain that the chances of any given buyer being one is almost nil.

[AiliailiA]

A computer cannot kill people, that's why they aren't already regulated like guns are. To use computers in an analogy as if they were guns is therefore a false equivalency.

Really? A faster computer could also be an instrument to, say, hack into a Pentagon server, and release information that kills American soldiers abroad. Limiting people to slow computers will, thus, stop people from hacking into government servers.

/guncontrollogic

Stop it. You read that somewhere, but you're exceeding your own knowledge of computers to extend the analogy.

I grant the analogy ... it's clever ... but I think you should leave the further exposition of it to its author. Use the search function, find the post where it was first brought to NSG. Use Google, find the original author of it. Use the forum or board where they posted it, sign up, invite the author to NSG.

Maybe they make a nation here and post on the forums, maybe they don't. I hope they do, because they have talent.

[Big Jim P]

You are still assuming that just because one can break the law, one will break the law.

Are you suggesting that Responsible Gun Owners from say... Indiana never sell their guns to criminals in say... Chicago, increasing the gun violence dramatically and also providing those who don't wish for there to be more regulation on firearms with an example to point and and laugh "Hah! Chicago has tons of crime, so gun control can't work!"?

Are you suggesting that I do?

Oh right, to a gun control person,anyone who wants a gun is automatically assumed to be a criminal.

[Big Jim P]

That's like saying

"Nobody NEEDS a computer with more than 1GB of hardrive space, or an internet connection faster than 50.0 mbs, so we're going to restrict it to that to cut down on online piracy."

It's bullshit. There should be no limit on the amount of THINGS I wish to own. I should be allowed to own as many as I choose to buy, because this is America, dammit.

Shit like that make me so glad I'm not American.

If one in a hundred legally certified gun owners sell 1 gun to a criminal (or otherwise disqualified person like a child, or certified mentally ill person) that's one in a hundred of the legally sold guns. With a limit of one legal gun per person, that would be 1 gun in the hands of a criminal for 98 guns in the hands of law-abiding people (note that the legally-certified buyer who sold to a criminal is not a law abiding citizen, but also no longer has a gun). That wouldn't be a problem.

If one in hundred legally certified gun owners sell twenty or thirty guns to criminals, that's a much bigger problem. They'll get caught, perhaps, but what does it matter? One more person to punish. No way of undoing the harm they did.

Since you are not American, why do American gun laws bother you so much?

[Alowwvia]

Really? A faster computer could also be an instrument to, say, hack into a Pentagon server, and release information that kills American soldiers abroad. Limiting people to slow computers will, thus, stop people from hacking into government servers.

/guncontrollogic

Stop it. You read that somewhere, but you're exceeding your own knowledge of computers to extend the analogy.

I grant the analogy ... it's clever ... but I think you should leave the further exposition of it to its author. Use the search function, find the post where it was first brought to NSG. Use Google, find the original author of it. Use the forum or board where they posted it, sign up, invite the author to NSG.

Maybe they make a nation here and post on the forums, maybe they don't. I hope they do, because they have talent.

I didn't know it was a copy-righted analogy. Or that analogies could only be used by the person who made them.

[Big Jim P]

Stop it. You read that somewhere, but you're exceeding your own knowledge of computers to extend the analogy.

I grant the analogy ... it's clever ... but I think you should leave the further exposition of it to its author. Use the search function, find the post where it was first brought to NSG. Use Google, find the original author of it. Use the forum or board where they posted it, sign up, invite the author to NSG.

Maybe they make a nation here and post on the forums, maybe they don't. I hope they do, because they have talent.

I didn't know it was a copy-righted analogy. Or that analogies could only be used by the person who made them.

Like many rules, this only applies when it is used to beat gun-control arguments.

[Frisivisia]

Except that computers don't work that way, and guns do. Thanks for playing Know Your Fallacies, you'll receive your consolation prize in the mail.

Oh they don't, do they?

Now you know how people who know jack and shit about guns feel when people start talking about 'duh assult wepons wiff da high capacity baby-killing clipz'.

And I agree. If you're using that line against me, it's not going to work. I actually oppose banning "assault weapons" based on visual qualities, but rather, I want it to be harder for felons, mentally ill people, and other people who cannot handle the responsibility of a firearm to not be able to obtain one. I think that we really need to crack down on handguns, rather than scury assault rifles.

[Frisivisia]

Shit like that make me so glad I'm not American.

If one in a hundred legally certified gun owners sell 1 gun to a criminal (or otherwise disqualified person like a child, or certified mentally ill person) that's one in a hundred of the legally sold guns. With a limit of one legal gun per person, that would be 1 gun in the hands of a criminal for 98 guns in the hands of law-abiding people (note that the legally-certified buyer who sold to a criminal is not a law abiding citizen, but also no longer has a gun). That wouldn't be a problem.

If one in hundred legally certified gun owners sell twenty or thirty guns to criminals, that's a much bigger problem. They'll get caught, perhaps, but what does it matter? One more person to punish. No way of undoing the harm they did.

Since you are not American, why do American gun laws bother you so much?

Because he doesn't follow that great American edict "Gott' take care'yer own.".

[Alowwvia]

Oh they don't, do they?

Now you know how people who know jack and shit about guns feel when people start talking about 'duh assult wepons wiff da high capacity baby-killing clipz'.

And I agree. If you're using that line against me, it's not going to work. I actually oppose banning "assault weapons" based on visual qualities, but rather, I want it to be harder for felons, mentally ill people, and other people who cannot handle the responsibility of a firearm to not be able to obtain one. I think that we really need to crack down on handguns, rather than scury assault rifles.

Dammit, why do I end up arguing with people who agree with me

[AiliailiA]

No. It is the responsibility of the owner of the gun, not to sell it to a criminal or lunatic.

If it wasn't, there would be no limitation on criminals buying a gun. All they'd have to do is offer the market price, in a private sale, and they could get a gun for the exact same price and a lot less paper-trail than a legal buyer would need to buy from a legal (and regulated) gun dealer.

"Criminals will always be able to get a gun" follows directly from what you say: the seller can take the money for the gun with no sense of guilt, nor legal responsibility, and all responsibility falls on the buyer of the weapon. That is how criminals get guns.

And that is why I say that people like you should be limited in how many guns they may own. I don't give a damn what your dad did, live your own life and take responsibility for your own choices. If you ever sold a gun to a criminal, I consider you a criminal. Even if you didn't know their criminal record ... because you should have known that before selling to them.

If I ever KNOWINGLY sold a gun to a criminal, I would be a criminal. I however do not automatically assume that everyone who wants to own a gun is a criminal (as you apparently do). In fact, due to the statistics, I am fairly certain that the chances of any given buyer being one is almost nil.

Yes I do. Yes you should. This is the standard imposed by law on licensed arms dealers: that they check whether the buyer is a legal buyer.

You sold guns to people without knowing whether or not they were criminals? You just assumed they were legally qualified to own a gun "due to statistics"?

Such incompetence should be illegal.

[Big Jim P]

If I ever KNOWINGLY sold a gun to a criminal, I would be a criminal. I however do not automatically assume that everyone who wants to own a gun is a criminal (as you apparently do). In fact, due to the statistics, I am fairly certain that the chances of any given buyer being one is almost nil.

Yes I do. Yes you should. This is the standard imposed by law on licensed arms dealers: that they check whether the buyer is a legal buyer.

You sold guns to people without knowing whether or not they were criminals? You just assumed they were legally qualified to own a gun "due to statistics"?

Such incompetence should be illegal.

If someone knowingly sells a gun to a criminal, it is no longer a transaction involving a responsible gun owner, but one between two criminals.

Personally, once I own a gun, I do not sell it.

[AiliailiA]

And I agree. If you're using that line against me, it's not going to work. I actually oppose banning "assault weapons" based on visual qualities, but rather, I want it to be harder for felons, mentally ill people, and other people who cannot handle the responsibility of a firearm to not be able to obtain one. I think that we really need to crack down on handguns, rather than scury assault rifles.

Dammit, why do I end up arguing with people who agree with me

Because there aren't just two sides to an argument.

[Frisivisia]

And I agree. If you're using that line against me, it's not going to work. I actually oppose banning "assault weapons" based on visual qualities, but rather, I want it to be harder for felons, mentally ill people, and other people who cannot handle the responsibility of a firearm to not be able to obtain one. I think that we really need to crack down on handguns, rather than scury assault rifles.

Dammit, why do I end up arguing with people who agree with me

Because, unfortunately, with gun control arguments, trenches get dug so that people who just want reasonable restriction are goaded into arguing for banning, and people who want slightly less regulation are goaded into arguing for LOLNORESTRICTIONSLETSMAEKREELLIFELIKEFALLOUT3.

[Big Jim P]

If I ever KNOWINGLY sold a gun to a criminal, I would be a criminal. I however do not automatically assume that everyone who wants to own a gun is a criminal (as you apparently do). In fact, due to the statistics, I am fairly certain that the chances of any given buyer being one is almost nil.

Yes I do. Yes you should. This is the standard imposed by law on licensed arms dealers: that they check whether the buyer is a legal buyer.

You sold guns to people without knowing whether or not they were criminals? You just assumed they were legally qualified to own a gun "due to statistics"?

Such incompetence should be illegal.

Oh, and if the criminal is out on the street trying to buy guns, the incompetence lies with the judicial and law enforcement system, not the gun owner selling his personal property in good faith.

[Dyakovo]

If I ever KNOWINGLY sold a gun to a criminal, I would be a criminal. I however do not automatically assume that everyone who wants to own a gun is a criminal (as you apparently do). In fact, due to the statistics, I am fairly certain that the chances of any given buyer being one is almost nil.

Yes I do. Yes you should. This is the standard imposed by law on licensed arms dealers: that they check whether the buyer is a legal buyer.

You sold guns to people without knowing whether or not they were criminals? You just assumed they were legally qualified to own a gun "due to statistics"?

Such incompetence should be illegal.

ITT: Not having access to FBI databases equals incompetence.