The general gun control thread

[Sociobiology]

so second amendment good first amendment bad?
there are still people who want us to join back up with England, if you want unicorns and faeries before you will consider something reasonable just admit to yourself you aren't interested in sensible gun laws.

No but if we are going to restrict or regulate one, well we should be able to regulate the other as well.

we do restrict the first amendment, but not based on "i don't like them"

[Spirit of Hope]

Well you have to regulate every equal harm equally. If pools kill 10k people a year and guns kill 10k people a year they are equally dangerous and should be regulated at the same level.

pools are regulated and have been for a while.

As have guns. If you are calling for gun regulations you obviously believe that the existing gun regulations aren't good enough. Others are simply pointing out that if pools cause more deaths than guns than shouldn't both require more regulation?

I prefer to use cars, since there exits a similar number of cars and guns, yet cars kill or injure environmentally 20 times as many people as guns do.

[Sociobiology]

pools are regulated and have been for a while.

As have guns. If you are calling for gun regulations you obviously believe that the existing gun regulations aren't good enough. Others are simply pointing out that if pools cause more deaths than guns than shouldn't both require more regulation?

pools kill people who voluntarily interact with them.
how many pools are used to commit homicide?

also drown=drown in a pool.

[Llamalandia]

As have guns. If you are calling for gun regulations you obviously believe that the existing gun regulations aren't good enough. Others are simply pointing out that if pools cause more deaths than guns than shouldn't both require more regulation?

pools kill people who voluntarily interact with them.
how many pools are used to commit homicide?

Actually many drownings are tragic accidents. Especially young people who don't know how to swim, or swim well enough. Or toddlers who fall in by accident, so what were you saying about voluntary interaction. Besides, as has been pointed out the perpetrator is often know to the victim, if you choose to have a relationship with someone who in all likelihood you know has a gun, well that's significantly on you. If you are so worried, not associated with gun owners is a good way to reduce though I concede not eliminate your chances of being killed with a gun.

[Sociobiology]

The masses have no use for a self defence firearm and expose themselves and others to a pointless risk.

We don't ban alcohol entirely, but we do restrict its use. Even when its use is far more likely than not to be harmless.

Most drunk drivers never kill anyone. Should drunk driving be legal?

Actually yes it should be legal to drive drunk. What should matter is actual harm not potential or perceived harm. If you can drive fine with a .16 bac

which you can't

(for which there is anecdotal that at least some individuals can)

underlined the only word that matters.

[Spirit of Hope]

As have guns. If you are calling for gun regulations you obviously believe that the existing gun regulations aren't good enough. Others are simply pointing out that if pools cause more deaths than guns than shouldn't both require more regulation?

pools kill people who voluntarily interact with them.
how many pools are used to commit homicide?

A small number, I am sure. Only a small percentage of guns are used to commit any crime, and an even smaller percentage injure or kill someone. And the largest percentage of people killed by guns are suicides those who "voluntarily interact with" guns. Also notably a number of pool regulations surround creating barriers to keep those who should not be interacting with the pool from interacting with the pool (fences, locked doors, covers, etc.)

[Llamalandia]

No but if we are going to restrict or regulate one, well we should be able to regulate the other as well.

we do restrict the first amendment, but not based on "i don't like them"

Well it's not actually even met as a literal restriction of the first amendment to begin with. More of a pledge that if gun owners allow the passage of background checks then everyone at Brady and moms demand action and whatever bllombergs shit is etc, have to sign a pledge to cease all activist activity with respect to firearms and weapons and associated paraphernalia. It wouldn't be legally enforceable, but if they ever try to push for any regulation beyond background checks, then we the pro gun side can pull out their signed statements and decry them as liars and untrustworthy actors.
It wouldn't literally stop them from saying whatever they want though. What I'm thinking of is like the whole Grover nor quiet no tax pledge thing. Sure politicians violate it on rare occasion and some have lost their careers as result.

[Sociobiology]

pools kill people who voluntarily interact with them.
how many pools are used to commit homicide?

Actually many drownings are tragic accidents. Especially young people who don't know how to swim, or swim well enough. Or toddlers who fall in by accident,

hence most of the regulation is to prevent access by these individuals gates, signs, covers, ect, (wow kinda like not letting criminals or the violent have access to guns!)

Besides, as has been pointed out the perpetrator is often know to the victim, if you choose to have a relationship with someone who in all likelihood you know has a gun, well that's significantly on you.

so you want to regulate who you can interact with but not who can own guns?

If you are so worried, not associated with gun owners is a good way to reduce though I concede not eliminate your chances of being killed with a gun.

so you want gun owner to have to publicly disclose gun ownership and ban concealed carry, disclosure is the best way to insure voluntary interaction, but not require all sellers to check if the person can legally purchase a gun. How does this make sense?

[Llamalandia]

Actually yes it should be legal to drive drunk. What should matter is actual harm not potential or perceived harm. If you can drive fine with a .16 bac

which you can't

(for which there is anecdotal that at least some individuals can)

underlined the only word that matters.

Well my burden of proof is only one person. If one person can successfully drove with a bac of .16 then by my reasoning we can't make a law precluding drunk driving. You might disagree with my reasoning though, I admit I'm pretty far on the libertarian spectrum. That doesn't mean we can't punish erratic drivers which includes drunk drivers or people who cause wrecks etc, we just can't punish them for something that mig but hasn't happened yet in my opinion.

[Sociobiology]

we do restrict the first amendment, but not based on "i don't like them"

Well it's not actually even met as a literal restriction of the first amendment to begin with. More of a pledge that if gun owners allow the passage of background checks then everyone at Brady and moms demand action and whatever bllombergs shit is etc, have to sign a pledge to cease all activist activity with respect to firearms and weapons and associated paraphernalia. It wouldn't be legally enforceable, but if they ever try to push for any regulation beyond background checks, then we the pro gun side can pull out their signed statements and decry them as liars and untrustworthy actors.
It wouldn't literally stop them from saying whatever they want though. What I'm thinking of is like the whole Grover nor quiet no tax pledge thing. Sure politicians violate it on rare occasion and some have lost their careers as result.

what's to stop you from saying whatever you want just to get them to sign the pledge?

and of course to be even and fair, that means you have to get all firearms activists to sing a pledge they will not support the deregulation of any firearm.

but seriously you know you are asking for something absurd to stop reasonable regulation, it would be no different than an atheist demanding the disbandment of all churches before agreeing to let a child pray to themselves in school. You're just using it as an excuse to not have to consider the argument and you know it.

[Llamalandia]

Actually many drownings are tragic accidents. Especially young people who don't know how to swim, or swim well enough. Or toddlers who fall in by accident,

hence most of the regulation is to prevent access by these individuals gates, signs, covers, ect, (wow kinda like not letting criminals or the violent have access to guns!)

Besides, as has been pointed out the perpetrator is often know to the victim, if you choose to have a relationship with someone who in all likelihood you know has a gun, well that's significantly on you.

so you want to regulate who you can interact with but not who can own guns?

If you are so worried, not associated with gun owners is a good way to reduce though I concede not eliminate your chances of being killed with a gun.

so you want gun owner to have to publicly disclose gun ownership and ban concealed carry, disclosure is the best way to insure voluntary interaction, but not require all sellers to check if the person can legally purchase a gun. How does this make sense?

It's not regulating who you interact with. That is your choice. I for one have zero qualms about interacting with law abiding gun owners. Could one of them accidentally or even deliberately kill me, maybe, but I calculate the probability as so low as to be totally negligable. But hey if you don't want to associate with gun owners your choice.

I'm always slightly torn on open vs concealed carry. On the one hand I want to respect the rights of gun owners to maintain privacy, on the other there is someone to be said, for open carry only, as then everyone knows you have a gun and if they are uncomfortable then they can freely choose not to be near you.

[North Calaveras]

all these arguements are bullshit because at the end of the day I'm going to do what it takes to defend myself and my family, just like many other Americans.

given the oppurtunity I bet even the anti-gunners would pick up a glock if it was the only thing they could use to put distance between themselves and an attacker, cause when your scared shitless there is only fight or flight.

[Llamalandia]

Well it's not actually even met as a literal restriction of the first amendment to begin with. More of a pledge that if gun owners allow the passage of background checks then everyone at Brady and moms demand action and whatever bllombergs shit is etc, have to sign a pledge to cease all activist activity with respect to firearms and weapons and associated paraphernalia. It wouldn't be legally enforceable, but if they ever try to push for any regulation beyond background checks, then we the pro gun side can pull out their signed statements and decry them as liars and untrustworthy actors.
It wouldn't literally stop them from saying whatever they want though. What I'm thinking of is like the whole Grover nor quiet no tax pledge thing. Sure politicians violate it on rare occasion and some have lost their careers as result.

what's to stop you from saying whatever you want just to get them to sign the pledge?

Well presumably there would be language to the effect that the agreement is null and void if background check legislation isn't passed. I can't remember exactly how nor quest pledges worked, I think maybe he agreed not to go run negative ads against if you signed I'm not sure though. But yeah, something saying if the pro gun people lie to the antigun people then the deal is off.

[Sociobiology]

which you can't


underlined the only word that matters.

Well my burden of proof is only one person. If one person can successfully drove

no its not, your burden of proof is that the alcohol had no effect on their driving.

[Llamalandia]

all these arguements are bullshit because at the end of the day I'm going to do what it takes to defend myself and my family, just like many other Americans.

given the oppurtunity I bet even the anti-gunners would pick up a glock if it was the only thing they could use to put distance between themselves and an attacker, cause when your scared shitless there is only fight or flight.

Probably true. Vthough at the end of the day if the extreme antigun folks want you weapons it is likely they will send the army or cops with army equipment to storm your place and take them killing you and your family if necessary. Not saying it's impossible to escape, but difficult, that is why it is important not just to win a literal war for gun rights but also the war of ideas regarding gun rights.

[North Calaveras]

all these arguements are bullshit because at the end of the day I'm going to do what it takes to defend myself and my family, just like many other Americans.

given the oppurtunity I bet even the anti-gunners would pick up a glock if it was the only thing they could use to put distance between themselves and an attacker, cause when your scared shitless there is only fight or flight.

Probably true. Vthough at the end of the day if the extreme antigun folks want you weapons it is likely they will send the army or cops with army equipment to storm your place and take them killing you and your family if necessary. Not saying it's impossible to escape, but difficult, that is why it is important not just to win a literal war for gun rights but also the war of ideas regarding gun rights.

of course, anti-gun people are pro-force(even though they don't want to admit it, but due to the nature of their arguement they would have to use force)

they trust police/military only with firearms(makes no sense because I'm a cop and military, yet I don't think I'm better than anyone else, were all human)

[Llamalandia]

Well my burden of proof is only one person. If one person can successfully drove

no its not, your burden of proof is that the alcohol had no effect on their driving.

Yeah, an anecdote of one person successfully passing a driving test (a couple times maybe three) should be sufficient. Pretty sure I can find that somewhere. Not going to waste my time at the moment though.

[Sociobiology]

hence most of the regulation is to prevent access by these individuals gates, signs, covers, ect, (wow kinda like not letting criminals or the violent have access to guns!)


so you want to regulate who you can interact with but not who can own guns?



so you want gun owner to have to publicly disclose gun ownership and ban concealed carry, disclosure is the best way to insure voluntary interaction, but not require all sellers to check if the person can legally purchase a gun. How does this make sense?

It's not regulating who you interact with. That is your choice. I for one have zero qualms about interacting with law abiding gun owners.

then why bring up the nonsense of putting the burden of prevention on the victim?

But hey if you don't want to associate with gun owners your choice.

I am a gun owner.

[Sociobiology]

no its not, your burden of proof is that the alcohol had no effect on their driving.

Yeah, an anecdote of one person successfully passing a driving test (a couple times maybe three) should be sufficient. Pretty sure I can find that somewhere. Not going to waste my time at the moment though.

so you can't even meet your own burden of proof, got it.

[North Calaveras]

I also find it hilarious how many on the left would disarm or regulate american firearms yet turn around and sell military grade weapons to rebels overseas.

[Llamalandia]

Probably true. Vthough at the end of the day if the extreme antigun folks want you weapons it is likely they will send the army or cops with army equipment to storm your place and take them killing you and your family if necessary. Not saying it's impossible to escape, but difficult, that is why it is important not just to win a literal war for gun rights but also the war of ideas regarding gun rights.

of course, anti-gun people are pro-force(even though they don't want to admit it, but due to the nature of their arguement they would have to use force)

they trust police/military only with firearms(makes no sense because I'm a cop and military, yet I don't think I'm better than anyone else, were all human)

Well in fairness you have at least hopefully received some training in firearms from your service (for which I thank you) that Joe Schmoe whose never or only rarely fired a gun doesn't have. Plus you generally cops and military recruit people who have a sense of duty and patriotism, but yeah, on an individual level there can always be some bad apples. Heck, personally I think cops have gotten a bit aggressive lately. Not much mind you but there does seem to be a slig change in mindset that comes with serious military hard wear given to civilian Leo's these days.

[Patridam]

[North Calaveras]

of course, anti-gun people are pro-force(even though they don't want to admit it, but due to the nature of their arguement they would have to use force)

they trust police/military only with firearms(makes no sense because I'm a cop and military, yet I don't think I'm better than anyone else, were all human)

Well in fairness you have at least hopefully received some training in firearms from your service (for which I thank you) that Joe Schmoe whose never or only rarely fired a gun doesn't have. Plus you generally cops and military recruit people who have a sense of duty and patriotism, but yeah, on an individual level there can always be some bad apples. Heck, personally I think cops have gotten a bit aggressive lately. Not much mind you but there does seem to be a slig change in mindset that comes with serious military hard wear given to civilian Leo's these days.

civlians can get just as good as training as us in many circumstances, it's really not hard. Hell, even we don't shoot our pistols that often, we have to qualify like once or twice every 6 months.

[Llamalandia]

Yeah, an anecdote of one person successfully passing a driving test (a couple times maybe three) should be sufficient. Pretty sure I can find that somewhere. Not going to waste my time at the moment though.

so you can't even meet your own burden of proof, got it.

Meh give me a few days, it isn't easy to find. And yeah, I may have set the bar a bit high specifying a .16 bac, dammit. Should either been vague or gone with anything over .08.

[The Conez Imperium]

The problem I find with US gun control is the lack of change.

No one likes talking about uncomfortable truths like gun control. More talk needs to happen instead of the US media becoming clammy after the Sandy Hook Massacre.

Are you kidding? Some media outlets, like the NY Daily News was talking about gun control CONSTANTLY after Sandy Hook.

They talked a lot but IIRC the assault rifle ban and high-capacity magazine ban was nullified in the senate.