Gun Control - A Political Thread

[Gun Manufacturers]

Full autos are very rarily used in crime. With only 2 legally owned guns ever being used in one since 1934.

And as I stated, a Klebold or Harris would love one of those.

Why? The rate of fire in most mass shootings is so low, the same rate can be reached with a pump action shotgun.

[Gun Manufacturers]

2) sorry what exactly was your proposal again I must have missed it perhaps you could point me to your post which contains it thanx

My proposal was simply that all firearms transactions must go through a licensed dealer who must perform a background check on the involved parties. To give it more sting any person who illegally transfers ownership of a fire arm can be liable for what is done with that fire arm, even if they had no knowledge of how it was to be used.

Or, we can give non-FFLs free access to NICS, so they can perform the background check without having to pay an FFL a transfer fee for 5-10 minutes worth of paperwork.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Well actually the hint about destroying guns used in crimes I'm entirely opposed to. At least in the most horrific cases I can understand the impulse whether rational or not to get destroy a weapon that was used to commit such a tragedy and is obviously charge with emotional for many people. I'd say more minor gun crimes it would make more sense for the govt to sell off the guns rather than destroy them. And yes as I believe even you realize nonproliferation isn't reasonable to apply to guns. They're not nukes there personal weapons.

At least you seem to realize that what you're asking for here would never pass and would never be accepted even if it did somehow (short of perhaps a repeal of the 2nd amendment which is even less likely).

Given that you realize that your position is pretty much a futile effort, what would you propose that you think both sides might be able to actually agree to. I mean I think my proposal and soc bio's proposals aren't unreasonable nor as untenable as your proposal, so I would ask what else you might propose instead. At least you seem to be open to negotiation and compromise so I give you that. Hopefully we can find more common ground here. For instance as I said I'm not entirely opposed to possibly allowing guns used in Crimes to be destroyed, but to ban the manufacture or sale or importation of new weapons strikes me as completely unreasonable. I mean essentially this would aside from the grandfather clause be more restrictive legislation than even the Japanese gun and sword law.

Plus technically you realize a few grenade launchers would still be legal under your proposal ?

I mean I'm seriously trying to find a common ground settlement that might actually work in practice, so I suppose the better question to ask you is what practical proposal would you make to help solve the gun violence problem I the United States?

The destruction of firearms wouldn't be an emotional response so much as a practical one designed to ensure that one more gun would be out of circulation.

Are grenade launchers currently legal? If not, I'm not sure why that would change.

I have nothing to propose that would be acceptable to gun rights advocates, as said advocates have shown no indication to accept anything that would actually keep guns off of the streets.

Grenade launchers are considered destructive devices regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

[Llamalandia]

My proposal was simply that all firearms transactions must go through a licensed dealer who must perform a background check on the involved parties. To give it more sting any person who illegally transfers ownership of a fire arm can be liable for what is done with that fire arm, even if they had no knowledge of how it was to be used.

Or, we can give non-FFLs free access to NICS, so they can perform the background check without having to pay an FFL a transfer fee for 5-10 minutes worth of paperwork.

True but then anyone can essentially find out what should be private or at least semiprivate records. I mean, I assume that if the nics system indicates that a customer is nuts that an FFL can't just go shouting about it around it town. I assume their are legal privacy protections. This would essentially allow anyone easy access to know if know if someone's nuts or not.

I like the idea of a lifetime licensure as proposed by sociobio as preferable to running people through NICS on every sale.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Arguments I often hear for no gun control:

1. Guns don't kill people, People kill people!
People with guns kill many more people than a person without a gun. Being able to shoot 10 people dead before the guy to your left has finished beating someone to death with a bat. Guns may not kill people but they are a tool used by men to kill people at a much faster rate than what they could without a gun!

2. But if everyone was armed we would be able to stop murders with guns!
If that's true why is it trained enforcers of the law in situations like that often freeze up and don't take the shot; not to mention some redneck with a pistol.

3. We have laws that we can enforce!
There minimal and riddled with loopholes that people get through. Ignoreing how poorly written they are you also must understand they do not restrict people from owning guns...the ultimate point of gun laws.

4. If we restrict guns only criminals will have them!
It's not that we are going to make guns disappere from the face of the earth. It's that you make it harder for criminals to get hold of the guns. Make it harder for the crazy person to get a gun and go on a shooting spree.

5. But the constitution...
All things are made to be edited as time goes on. When the constitution was written it wasn't intended so everyone could walk around with a damn gun in there pocket.

6. Widespread gun ownership stop tyranny!
Oh does it? let me direct your eyes to syria....or egypt....Guns give people the ability to do whatever they deem fit without recognising the concequences on another party. Not to mention not everyone is stable enough to be wielding a firearm!

7. We don't want them!
Search up opinion polls and they show quite clearly majorites stating they wish for resstriction. Even more clealrly they wish assult wepones to be banned. Heres some proof (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/0 ... n-society/)

------------------------------------------

Ultiamtly 30,000 americans are killed every year due to gun violence....a large price to play so you can feel like a cowboy -.-

Almost 2/3 of that 30,000 number is suicide by firearm.

[Llamalandia]

The destruction of firearms wouldn't be an emotional response so much as a practical one designed to ensure that one more gun would be out of circulation.

Are grenade launchers currently legal? If not, I'm not sure why that would change.

I have nothing to propose that would be acceptable to gun rights advocates, as said advocates have shown no indication to accept anything that would actually keep guns off of the streets.

Grenade launchers are considered destructive devices regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

True, but that means that it's legal to own some grenade launchers at least if grandfathered just like machine guns does it not. Also is it the grenade launcher or the grenade rounds which are classified as destructive devices, I was thinking it was the grenades themselves that were the destructive devices or am I mistaken about that?

[Gun Manufacturers]

Or, we can give non-FFLs free access to NICS, so they can perform the background check without having to pay an FFL a transfer fee for 5-10 minutes worth of paperwork.

True but then anyone can essentially find out what should be private or at least semiprivate records. I mean, I assume that if the nics system indicates that a customer is nuts that an FFL can't just go shouting about it around it town. I assume their are legal privacy protections. This would essentially allow anyone easy access to know if know if someone's nuts or not.

I like the idea of a lifetime licensure as proposed by sociobio as preferable to running people through NICS on every sale.

NICS doesn't give out that kind of information. They either deny with no reason given, or aprove and issue an authorization number.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Grenade launchers are considered destructive devices regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

True, but that means that it's legal to own some grenade launchers at least if grandfathered just like machine guns does it not. Also is it the grenade launcher or the grenade rounds which are classified as destructive devices, I was thinking it was the grenades themselves that were the destructive devices or am I mistaken about that?

Grenade launchers can be bought new, there was no cutoff date for manufacture on them (unlike full auto/select fire weapons). And both the launcher and each individual anti-personnel/explosive round is considered a destructive device.

[Trezchoix]

If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because [...] you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer.

Stefan molyneux.

[Llamalandia]

True but then anyone can essentially find out what should be private or at least semiprivate records. I mean, I assume that if the nics system indicates that a customer is nuts that an FFL can't just go shouting about it around it town. I assume their are legal privacy protections. This would essentially allow anyone easy access to know if know if someone's nuts or not.

I like the idea of a lifetime licensure as proposed by sociobio as preferable to running people through NICS on every sale.

NICS doesn't give out that kind of information. They either deny with no reason given, or aprove and issue an authorization number.

True, but still, you know they did something wrong or are crazy. If you happen to kind of know a strange person at work say and want to confirm your suspicions that theyre crazy (presuming they wouldn't have been hired if they had a criminal record) it would be pretty easy to determine from a NICS denial.

Plus I can see other people abusing the system for non gun related purposes as well. Don't want to pay for a real background check, just run the name of that potential employee through NICS, they're either a felon or crazy either way you probably don't want em working for you. Heck that would give an employer plausible denialability too. I mean mental health can't be a reason to reject hiring someone usually (ADA and whatnot) so you run the name through NICS and bam, hey, your suddenly not discriminating against people with mental illness, youre just basing your hiring decision on whether or not a person passes a through the NICS.

[Llamalandia]

True, but that means that it's legal to own some grenade launchers at least if grandfathered just like machine guns does it not. Also is it the grenade launcher or the grenade rounds which are classified as destructive devices, I was thinking it was the grenades themselves that were the destructive devices or am I mistaken about that?

Grenade launchers can be bought new, there was no cutoff date for manufacture on them (unlike full auto/select fire weapons). And both the launcher and each individual anti-personnel/explosive round is considered a destructive device.

Ah, thanx for clarifying it's been a while since I've read the specific regulations on em.

[Big Jim P]

Arguments I often hear for no gun control:

1. Guns don't kill people, People kill people!
People with guns kill many more people than a person without a gun. Being able to shoot 10 people dead before the guy to your left has finished beating someone to death with a bat. Guns may not kill people but they are a tool used by men to kill people at a much faster rate than what they could without a gun!

2. But if everyone was armed we would be able to stop murders with guns!
If that's true why is it trained enforcers of the law in situations like that often freeze up and don't take the shot; not to mention some redneck with a pistol.

3. We have laws that we can enforce!
There minimal and riddled with loopholes that people get through. Ignoreing how poorly written they are you also must understand they do not restrict people from owning guns...the ultimate point of gun laws.

4. If we restrict guns only criminals will have them!
It's not that we are going to make guns disappere from the face of the earth. It's that you make it harder for criminals to get hold of the guns. Make it harder for the crazy person to get a gun and go on a shooting spree.

5. But the constitution...
All things are made to be edited as time goes on. When the constitution was written it wasn't intended so everyone could walk around with a damn gun in there pocket.

6. Widespread gun ownership stop tyranny!
Oh does it? let me direct your eyes to syria....or egypt....Guns give people the ability to do whatever they deem fit without recognising the concequences on another party. Not to mention not everyone is stable enough to be wielding a firearm!

7. We don't want them!
Search up opinion polls and they show quite clearly majorites stating they wish for resstriction. Even more clealrly they wish assult wepones to be banned. Heres some proof (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/0 ... n-society/)

------------------------------------------

Ultiamtly 30,000 americans are killed every year due to gun violence....a large price to play so you can feel like a cowboy -.-

7: Your source is unacceptably biased. I have seen polls that say the majority don't want more restrictive/want less restrictive gun laws.

As for the 30,000 deaths: 2 as has been mentioned 2/3rds are suicides. People have the right to do with their bodies as they see fit, including killing themselves. Nopw compare the 30,000 deaths to 300 million guns in the hands of 100 million owners. The "problem" is insignificant.

[Big Jim P]

Nice, except that you haven't made up for taking away an important bargaining chip for prosecutors.

You know..it just amazes me.

Anti-gun people accuse gun companies of not caring for gun crimes and only care about profit.

And here you (anti-gun) are saying prosecutors won't profit if the criminal gets punished, which seems to be a problem to you.

So much for that!

Indeed. The whole idea IS to take away that bargaining chip and PUNISH THE CRIMINAL FOR USING A GUN! Instead we unduly harass the innocent, law abiding gun owners.

[Mons Garle]

I am strongly for gun control. We seem to hear of college shootings and other firearm-related incidents over in the US on a far too regular basis. They talk about gun-rights, but what about the rights of those who lose their lives because people who are wholly unsuitable for possessing a gun can seemingly freely obtain and use them?

[Viinborg]

I am strongly for gun control. We seem to hear of college shootings and other firearm-related incidents over in the US on a far too regular basis. They talk about gun-rights, but what about the rights of those who lose their lives because people who are wholly unsuitable for possessing a gun can seemingly freely obtain and use them?

Apparently, if you provide more guns, we will all be safer.
I know, it doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense, but then again, the desire to want to carry a gun on the street doesn't have anything to do with common sense.

[Big Jim P]

Increase the penalties for gun crimes, eliminate plea bargaining and parole for gun crimes. Done.

so someone who wings a neighbor while firing at a burglar should be treated just the same as if he just shot randomly around his house and hit a bystander? Or do you not understand the point of plea bargains?

that is an accident, not a crime.

[Sociobiology]

you do realize that is going to cost exponentially more for gun owners than just a one time permit.

I haven't been talking about your suggestion, I've been talking about my suggestion of FREE access to NICS for non-FFL holders.

to basically you want to make make criminal history and mental health diagnosis public knowledge, to throw out the right to privacy.

[Big Jim P]

Well as I've said let people legal buy sell own and use post 80's full auto machine guns. Currently you can only own the semiauto versions of such weapons. I'd be cool with expanded background checks of federal licensure system in exchange for letting people own the full auto versions.

So in return for expanded background checks, you'd allow fully automatic weapons to be possessed. in other words, in exchange for something that would help very little, you would get something that would end up causing immense harm once it inevitably got into the wrong hands.

Thank god you're not an actual negotiator.

Nice to see a gun-control advocate actually admit this(even if it was likely inadvertent,

[Sociobiology]

Well as I've said let people legal buy sell own and use post 80's full auto machine guns. Currently you can only own the semiauto versions of such weapons. I'd be cool with expanded background checks of federal licensure system in exchange for letting people own the full auto versions.

So in return for expanded background checks, you'd allow fully automatic weapons to be possessed. in other words, in exchange for something that would help very little, you would get something that would end up causing immense harm once it inevitably got into the wrong hands.

Thank god you're not an actual negotiator.

actually he is accepting something that will help a great deal in return for something that will have very very little impact on gun crime.

[Big Jim P]

umm wow, again, as I said I think youre a reasonable person and I certainly hope your aren't trying to deliberately prove me wrong on that particular point. Of course if you are I believe that the communists have a saying about how capitalist will be hung by their own rope. I would suggest that this post would clearly be your metaphorical rope so to speak.

Look, quite frankly 10,000 deaths out of 300,000,000 people quite frankly isn't that bad. That's not to minimize the impact but if youre hoping that somehow this nation is going literally tear itself apart with guns until it turns into some sort of post apocalyptic mad max hellscape, I think it's safe to say that you are in fact in error. The bodies aren't going to "pile up" as you put it.

But that's just it there are. Lots of countries have tighter gun controls than the united states some work some don't. Some of this has nothing even to do with guns. Even if every gun on the planet were destroyed tomorrow and no new weapons were produced there would still be murders and stabbings and death and carnage in the world. Hell war existed before guns did.

I mean you say that progun folks are totally unreasonable and unwilling to comrpomise but which of us is the one who has a position of essentially demanding everything they want while conceding very little if anything. It's clearly not me.

See this is the thing, I don't want to just "let the chips fall...or let the bodies pile up" I want to reach across the battle lines and engage in a real and meaningful dialogue designed to at least reduce and mitigate the casualities and at the same time preserve a long cherished and much enjoyed right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes in this country. I would hope that you would largely feel the same way.

If not, then I must say, that you are unfortunately far less reasonable a person than I had previously thought much to my disappointment and sadness. And if that's the case then yes, quite frankly if you are as unreasonable and inflexible as the above post implies and if you represent even a sliver of the gun control advocates, then unfortunately I can begin to comprehend the absolute hardline stance taken by the progun people like wayne lapierre who are so often demonized as inflexible and uncompromising.

To hell with real and meaningful dialogue. When one side is so right and the other side is so wrong, there's nothing to talk about.

It's like if my neighbor had a giant stockpile of napalm in his basement, and took it out to burn shit down once a week, and I complained. So my neighbor responds "Well, I have a right to this napalm, but I'll tell you what. As part of a deal, because I want to be reasonable, I'll limit the burnings to once every other week, and give you a heads up." That's ridiculous. The only reasonable answer when it comes to keeping the neighborhood safe is to get rid of the napalm, or at least to make sure that he doesn't use it at all.

Similarly, the only reasonable way to limit gun deaths in the United States involves actually getting the guns off of the streets on the federal level. However, there's no way that the gun rights crowd will be willing to accept that, and since they have such an incredible amount of pull in politics, that's never going to happen. So there's no use in negotiating anything.

Oh, and I'll try to live with your disappointment in me.

I will agree that one side is wrong: the side that wishes to disarm the innocent and leave them at the mercy of the predators among us.

[Big Jim P]

I am strongly for gun control. We seem to hear of college shootings and other firearm-related incidents over in the US on a far too regular basis. They talk about gun-rights, but what about the rights of those who lose their lives because people who are wholly unsuitable for possessing a gun can seemingly freely obtain and use them?

What you are not hearing is the times firearms are used for legitimate purposes. It is rarely news.

[Pagan Hungary]

Definitely against gun control, as I live in Australia our government doesn't like it when we protect ourselves.
I think that it's going to be more and more pressure from people for our current gun laws to change with all the crimes still happening. Saw a news report tonight where a family had been harassed 5 times in 7 months by an armed gunman (with a handgun which is clearly illegal), with him actually shooting into their house when they refused to open up and of course you can't stop a gunman when you have none of your own. Local pizza shop on my bloc also got helped up a few weeks ago, nothing they could do there. Then there was this as well: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05 ... idnt-care/

Both of our major political parties don't care about self-defense at all, and the topic of gun control just has no traction at all in politics. I've asked my dad, about his friends and about my friend's dads all about when they we're legally allowed to use practical guns; they were all responsible and they thought it was a great liberty which has sadly been revoked. Yet too bad, because a bunch of mentally disturbed / disabled people went and shot up innocents, so now the rest of us lose our right to defend ourselves.

[Viinborg]

I am strongly for gun control. We seem to hear of college shootings and other firearm-related incidents over in the US on a far too regular basis. They talk about gun-rights, but what about the rights of those who lose their lives because people who are wholly unsuitable for possessing a gun can seemingly freely obtain and use them?

What you are not hearing is the times firearms are used for legitimate purposes. It is rarely news.

I am sure they are used for legitimate purposes most of the time, but how does that play against those incidents?
Relaxed gun legislation does not increase human well-being. That is to say, there are not fewer firearm-related fatal incidents because there are more guns in society.

[Gun Manufacturers]

NICS doesn't give out that kind of information. They either deny with no reason given, or aprove and issue an authorization number.

True, but still, you know they did something wrong or are crazy. If you happen to kind of know a strange person at work say and want to confirm your suspicions that theyre crazy (presuming they wouldn't have been hired if they had a criminal record) it would be pretty easy to determine from a NICS denial.

Plus I can see other people abusing the system for non gun related purposes as well. Don't want to pay for a real background check, just run the name of that potential employee through NICS, they're either a felon or crazy either way you probably don't want em working for you. Heck that would give an employer plausible denialability too. I mean mental health can't be a reason to reject hiring someone usually (ADA and whatnot) so you run the name through NICS and bam, hey, your suddenly not discriminating against people with mental illness, youre just basing your hiring decision on whether or not a person passes a through the NICS.

The thing is, NICS has denied people that should have passed, that's why there's an appeal process. A friend of mine, who had just gotten his CT pistol permit (in which a background check was performed) was denied by NICS twice (2 separate occasions) when he went to purchase firearms. It was because of an error in the system, not because of anything my friend did.

[Novorobo]

If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because [...] you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer.

Stefan molyneux.

Why, it's almost as if guns in the hands of elected authorities instead of ordinary citizens constitutes "controlling" guns.