-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Debate Thread: USA Gun Control
- Thread starter phisheep
- Start date
No not render them criminals, of course not. Rather a procedure to outlaw many types of guns, collect them, and registration and strict approval moving forwards.
Chicago itself may have strict gun laws but a person can pop over a few hours in either direction and acquire guns, and it's trivial to resell them (hence why it's so easy to acquire them).
And civil war? That seems sensational. We're not the Wild West.
Yes, freedom of speech has toppled in Australia.
I think that's how the poem goes.
First they came for the guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a gun.
Then civil war happened.
I think that's how the poem goes.
First they came for the guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a gun.
Then civil war happened.
How exactly do you expect people to hand in them firearms they were gifted from their family because the law says so? That is the most un-American thing I've heard in a long time. You expect people to just follow this law? Despite the massive evidence that such prohibitions do not work as seen with alcohol and the drug war? "No not render them criminals." Are you naive? That's exactly how it works. If you outlaw guns anyone with a gun is made a criminal. I'd rather be a criminal and own my gun for my own safety than give mine up for doing jack shit.
Won't cause a civil war? Sensational? Are you really American? You expect Americans to just turn in their guns and that's that. A country that not only fought the British and won, but also fought over slavery and won? Dude, you're going to go to war if you do that, and for your sake I hope you know how to shoot in your dream scenario.
In Australia freedom of speech is not a right like it is in America. If you get rid of guns, you could easily get rid of anything else on the Bill of Rights. Straight from Google:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/09/australia-does-not-have-freedom-of-speech/
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression
Comparing Australia to America makes you look silly. In America, guns are a right. Freedom of speech is also a right. If you outlaw one right, logic dictates other rights are also up for grabs.
I hope for your sake that you're not American. TBH, non-American's shouldn't even be able to weigh in.
Well, yea. It's the social contract. Laws change to, ostensibly, benefit the many. I feel for those with firearms that may have some sentimental value, but old family histories are worth far, far, far less than a single human life to me.
And what massive evidence do you cite? Because last I checked massive gun deaths and mass shootings aren't a problem in other first world nations with responsible gun control laws. There will always be terrorist attacks, sadly, and the odd insane person getting their hands on a powerful gun. That doesn't mean we should avoid gun control. That makes no sense to me.
Because the last time anyone tried that, they lost their funding.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nce-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/
So long as no research can be done, no new reasonable legislation will be agreed to.
I'm sorry but I am not seeing your point or reference. It's just taking me to the top of this page.
Rights do not need to be enshrined in a constitutional document to be part of a legal framework.
Logic does not dictate that rights are like dominos. Although, logical fallacy does.
Logic does not dictate that rights are like dominos. Although, logical fallacy does.
I think in general this topic hasn't been too awful, but I think we should lay some ground rules here.
To the left:
- The idea that guns being banned any time in the foreseeable future in America is laughable, at best. It's not that it may or may not be a good idea, it's that gun ownership is ingrained in the very fabric of the country and would need the equivalent of an act of god to change. Like it or not, it's a right enshrined in the Constitution. Want to debate background checks or other facets of restricting gun ownership to specific individuals? Go ahead. If you want to debate whether it should be a right or not, go ahead, but temper your expectations with the reality that it already is one.
To the right:
- I think we need to cool it with the doomsday scenarios. Yes, there was a Civil War ~150 years ago, and apart from a few loonies on either side of the spectrum, no one WANTS to go that route again. The President may be Commander-in-Chief, but he does not have unilateral authority to suddenly declare war on half of the populace. The legislature, the states, and even members in his own chain of command do not have to follow such an order. You can claim that gun ownership is part of the desire to defy a tyrannical government, but assuming that's the likely immediate-future outcome of all this is ridiculously out there. The argument "better to have one and never need than to not have one and need it" is tired and while it sounds pithy, is just a platitude.
I'm seeing a lot of rote talking points from the opposite ends of the POV here, and I think this discussion could do with more thoughtful discussion and less sensationalism. Less arguing the extremes, more on measured responses.
Disclaimer: I'm a veteran with an expert marksman badge, have hunted in the past, do not own a gun at present, but am not opposed to the idea.
To the left:
- The idea that guns being banned any time in the foreseeable future in America is laughable, at best. It's not that it may or may not be a good idea, it's that gun ownership is ingrained in the very fabric of the country and would need the equivalent of an act of god to change. Like it or not, it's a right enshrined in the Constitution. Want to debate background checks or other facets of restricting gun ownership to specific individuals? Go ahead. If you want to debate whether it should be a right or not, go ahead, but temper your expectations with the reality that it already is one.
To the right:
- I think we need to cool it with the doomsday scenarios. Yes, there was a Civil War ~150 years ago, and apart from a few loonies on either side of the spectrum, no one WANTS to go that route again. The President may be Commander-in-Chief, but he does not have unilateral authority to suddenly declare war on half of the populace. The legislature, the states, and even members in his own chain of command do not have to follow such an order. You can claim that gun ownership is part of the desire to defy a tyrannical government, but assuming that's the likely immediate-future outcome of all this is ridiculously out there. The argument "better to have one and never need than to not have one and need it" is tired and while it sounds pithy, is just a platitude.
I'm seeing a lot of rote talking points from the opposite ends of the POV here, and I think this discussion could do with more thoughtful discussion and less sensationalism. Less arguing the extremes, more on measured responses.
Disclaimer: I'm a veteran with an expert marksman badge, have hunted in the past, do not own a gun at present, but am not opposed to the idea.
This Washington Post article written by a FiveThirtyEight writer and statistician puts forth interesting points about being when thinking about solutions to gun violence:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.7e1fe8cb1cbf
The article gets a little off topic and talks about suicides and gang violence (which incidentally makes up the majority of gun violence), but the more interesting point is how a more acute approach, namely laws which protect specific and common victims of gun violence, project as being more effective than broad restrictions. Ultimately, the article argues the solution to curbing mass shootings starts with protecting potential victims and identifying and reforming potential shooters.
And like others have said, CDC research would go a long way to finding out how exactly we could make America safer from gun violence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.7e1fe8cb1cbf
The article gets a little off topic and talks about suicides and gang violence (which incidentally makes up the majority of gun violence), but the more interesting point is how a more acute approach, namely laws which protect specific and common victims of gun violence, project as being more effective than broad restrictions. Ultimately, the article argues the solution to curbing mass shootings starts with protecting potential victims and identifying and reforming potential shooters.
And like others have said, CDC research would go a long way to finding out how exactly we could make America safer from gun violence.
Source?
It links to my own post which has data in it.
The whole CDC thing is enough to convince me that nobody arguing for gun ownership on the national level is doing so in good faith. It proves that we're at the level where a reasonable dialogue is impossible.
It's one of the reasons I think we should be focused on restarting research, as well as increasing reliability of reporting, and improving the mechanisms behind existing laws. Right now the background checks are nearly useless, because reporting on mental illness and domestic abuse is spotty, partly due to technical issues, but also because such reporting isn't always mandatory. We could do a lot with the existing laws via better enforcement and more oversight, but that's not particularly sexy, and it runs into some of the same obstinacy you see when people suggest more radical measures.
I disagree. I think we can get a fair compromise where both sides will get a few things they want. Unfortunately you have a gun lobby that has a very large stranglehold on our government.
Oh yeah, that's what blocking it. The gun lobby is the whole problem. But when one side managed to ban anyone from even looking into the problem? Like that sounds like a bad joke. Can't move forward until that stuff goes away.
That is pretty much where I think things need to begin for the US
Hunting, self-defense, varmint removal. Can't think of anything that warrants semi-automatic rifles, though.
The NRA especially, is fully aware of what that study will conclude.
i considered these, but i consider hunting a hobby, and there are better means of self defense, and PROBABLY(?) other ways to get rid of critters
I actually found that link to be a truly terrible article. The author is a statistician who uses no statistics to back her case. Even when there is no link between two things, you can find statistics to show there is no link (sometimes called the null hypothesis). Since the author made no attempt at such thing, it reads as a pure opinion with very weak "research."
I did a little more digging and found someone with a counter-argument: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post
So it clearly looks like the author of the first article (Libresco) was just clearly wrong.
We have more than enough evidence to suggest that gun control clear works. CDC research will just be the metaphorical nail in the coffin in terms of overwhelming evidence in favor of gun control. Of course there is no reason to believe pro-gun advocates will listen.
this highlights something worth noting: republicans only endorse gun ownership when it's convenient for them to do so (e.g. when minorities aren't the ones in possession of them). the mulford act is a good example of this mentality in action
That reminds me: There was a black woman who threatened her husband with a handgun. Despite only shooting warning shots she was sentenced to something like 20 years in jail. This despite the fact that the state had "Stand Your Ground" laws.
It's pretty self-evident in my opinion there could be no way gun rights could be used in a manner that protects civil rights. Black people will just be branded thugs, muslims will be branded terrorists, and will be either punished or disarmed unfairly. White people however, especial when it comes to the police, will be allowed to kill minorities with a high degree of impunity.
It's illegal to shoot warning shots at someone.
And Democrats will to take guns away from the people they also say are the most vulnerable. Both parties are full of shit on this issue.
Hell, I'm a Canadian gun owner, and I find America's fetish for guns to be really creepy. Like that it's a basic human right to have access to arms, valuing this over things like access to health care or education is super messed up.
Some things I like about Canadian gun laws:
-Need to have take a safety course and pass a test to get a license
-Two types of licenses, Restricted, and Non Restricted. Restricted gives you access to the AR15 platform, handguns, and semi auto long guns under a barrel length of 18.5"
-Restricted firearms are registered. I had an AR15 that I sold very recently, in order to do that, I had to acquire the buyers information, including license number, then I had to call the firearms office to initiate the transfer, which at the same time verifies that the buyer is indeed who he says he is.
-Background checks happen on a daily basis, not at the point of purchase. I was at the gun store once and overheard a guy say he punched somebody in the face, then next day he got a call from the RCMP, who confiscated his firearms and ammunition. He's no longer allowed to own guns as far as I'm aware.
-Non restricted guns have to be stored in a locked container, or rendered inoperable (removing the bolt and locking it in a container, or a trigger lock), restricted guns have to be both locked in a container and rendered inoperable
Things I don't like
-A lot of guns were outright banned by name with no criteria for why, many of the guns banned have perfectly legal analogues, for example AK style guns are banned, but the SKS is legal in Canada, which is the precursor to the AK, the vz58 is also a legal firearm in Canada, dubbed the "Canadian AK" as it is the closest thing we can get, the Czech military's standard issue rifle, which fires the same round the AK most commonly fires. Another oddity is the HK G11 is banned in Canada, despite being a gun that never made it past the prototype phases and cannot be acquired by anybody.
-Gun storage laws are incredibly vague, it's not clearly defined what is considered a safe container to store a firearm in.
-Guns are viewed the same way a gamer views weapon stats in a video game, each gun is unique and has its own "Stats", the AR15 has the "Restricted" status, and requires you to get a special license to get it, however there are many guns like the AR15 that are non restricted, such as the Tavor, Israel's standard issue rifle, which fires the same round as the AR15, takes the same magazines as the AR15, and is semi auto like the AR15, both guns are functionally the same, however the AR15 is the one considered to be more "Deadly". There are many guns that are functionally the same as the AR15, but are non restricted.
-The main "Restriction" with the restricted license is that you can only fire firearms considered Restricted at a gun range. I fail to see what this will prevent, a person who wants to commit a mass shooting isn't going to say to himself "Oh gee that's right I can't take my pistol anywhere but the range, no killing for me today, I guess."
-The RCMP rarely follow the law, and often make things up as they go along. The popular vz58 rifle I mentioned got a special edition, the gun was the exact same, but with some very slight cosmetic differences, it was banned, despite this never having been the case before with other guns.
If America's gun laws were to hypothetically be rewritten, I strongly feel that somebody who knows their stuff about guns is an absolute must. The dislikes I listed regarding our gun laws in Canada is the tip of the iceberg, a lot of our laws are incredibly flawed, the "Feel good" laws that sound good to people who know nothing about guns, but don't really do anything. I think the US could learn a thing or two from us, but we have our own issues too. I think one of the biggest things would be storage of firearms, as a lot of guns used in crimes are stolen. If people kept them locked up, this would happen a lot less. The people currently in charge of our gun laws outright refuse to learn about the things they're making laws about, which doesn't sit right with me at all, considering this is about peoples lives/safety.
Some things I like about Canadian gun laws:
-Need to have take a safety course and pass a test to get a license
-Two types of licenses, Restricted, and Non Restricted. Restricted gives you access to the AR15 platform, handguns, and semi auto long guns under a barrel length of 18.5"
-Restricted firearms are registered. I had an AR15 that I sold very recently, in order to do that, I had to acquire the buyers information, including license number, then I had to call the firearms office to initiate the transfer, which at the same time verifies that the buyer is indeed who he says he is.
-Background checks happen on a daily basis, not at the point of purchase. I was at the gun store once and overheard a guy say he punched somebody in the face, then next day he got a call from the RCMP, who confiscated his firearms and ammunition. He's no longer allowed to own guns as far as I'm aware.
-Non restricted guns have to be stored in a locked container, or rendered inoperable (removing the bolt and locking it in a container, or a trigger lock), restricted guns have to be both locked in a container and rendered inoperable
Things I don't like
-A lot of guns were outright banned by name with no criteria for why, many of the guns banned have perfectly legal analogues, for example AK style guns are banned, but the SKS is legal in Canada, which is the precursor to the AK, the vz58 is also a legal firearm in Canada, dubbed the "Canadian AK" as it is the closest thing we can get, the Czech military's standard issue rifle, which fires the same round the AK most commonly fires. Another oddity is the HK G11 is banned in Canada, despite being a gun that never made it past the prototype phases and cannot be acquired by anybody.
-Gun storage laws are incredibly vague, it's not clearly defined what is considered a safe container to store a firearm in.
-Guns are viewed the same way a gamer views weapon stats in a video game, each gun is unique and has its own "Stats", the AR15 has the "Restricted" status, and requires you to get a special license to get it, however there are many guns like the AR15 that are non restricted, such as the Tavor, Israel's standard issue rifle, which fires the same round as the AR15, takes the same magazines as the AR15, and is semi auto like the AR15, both guns are functionally the same, however the AR15 is the one considered to be more "Deadly". There are many guns that are functionally the same as the AR15, but are non restricted.
-The main "Restriction" with the restricted license is that you can only fire firearms considered Restricted at a gun range. I fail to see what this will prevent, a person who wants to commit a mass shooting isn't going to say to himself "Oh gee that's right I can't take my pistol anywhere but the range, no killing for me today, I guess."
-The RCMP rarely follow the law, and often make things up as they go along. The popular vz58 rifle I mentioned got a special edition, the gun was the exact same, but with some very slight cosmetic differences, it was banned, despite this never having been the case before with other guns.
If America's gun laws were to hypothetically be rewritten, I strongly feel that somebody who knows their stuff about guns is an absolute must. The dislikes I listed regarding our gun laws in Canada is the tip of the iceberg, a lot of our laws are incredibly flawed, the "Feel good" laws that sound good to people who know nothing about guns, but don't really do anything. I think the US could learn a thing or two from us, but we have our own issues too. I think one of the biggest things would be storage of firearms, as a lot of guns used in crimes are stolen. If people kept them locked up, this would happen a lot less. The people currently in charge of our gun laws outright refuse to learn about the things they're making laws about, which doesn't sit right with me at all, considering this is about peoples lives/safety.
Responsible? Mass shootings are out of control in this country, doing nothing is what's irresponsible.
Guns are meant to be used for defense when you consider your life in immediate danger. If you're firing warning shots, then you're obviously not in a life or death situation. Same goes for purposely wounding. While I feel for her situation, I've read many progun sites suggest against this as a general rule for this very reason. I don't see the race angle in this particular story as any shooter I know would advise against firing warning shots whether white or black. It's well known that it's a big mistake. This isn't even considering the safety element of where those shots end up. I'm black myself, but I just don't see it the way you do.
Last edited:
Don't forget about prohibited and I totally agree about the weird rules the RCMP comes up with.
Yeah I didn't bother covering prohibited because you had to be alive in the 70s to get that license
Damn have I been totally wrong about how this class works. I won't be able to inherit some of my fathers prohibited guns in this case? I was told that there was a transfer process with direct blood relations.
The issue of homicides should be more of a concern.
Also, gun regulation hasn't stopped mass shootings in Europe.
https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
People die in larger numbers and they still happen frequently.
Never said we should do nothing. I just don't think limiting ammunition is a solution and prevents people from having safer guns while also making it more likely to make people criminals (seeing as many 9mm pistols for instance have a stock of 10).
Keyboard
Guest
Suicide by gun is a bigger problem. Mass shootings are part of it.
US needs federal regulation, not just states. Otherwise gun owners just go to states with loose gun laws, buy their stuff there, and hop back.
US needs federal regulation, not just states. Otherwise gun owners just go to states with loose gun laws, buy their stuff there, and hop back.
That's just patently absurd. One party actually cares for minority rights and the other doesn't.
To be honest, I think you are suffering from the delusion that self-defense is a common thing. It isn't. There are less than 2000 cases of armed self-defense per year versus 13,000 homicides and 33k total gun deaths. Even then many of those cases the defender was not in truly deadly danger (common example: stopping a burglary where the burglar probably shot second).
That seems like the law is written backwards. It's legal to kill a person but not legal to threaten the same person. After all, a dead person can't testify against you, so there is no evidence you were actually in real danger. As I pointed out to Himuro, real self-defense is remarkably rare.
Taking guns away from people in the US is how you end up with an armed insurrection of the God & Guns populace of middle America. There are extremist militias all over the country foaming at the mouth for a chance to play soldier and kick off a violent uprising and the federal government is well aware.
OP
OP
With respect, Hecht, I think we are slowly getting there - only the one doomsday poster, and some pretty broad consensus over the impracticability of outright ban. I'm aiming to summarise at the end of each day (UK time), and hope it'll steer in sane directions. Probably take a week or so to settle into focus (if we last that long). Generally I'm quite heartened by most of the longer posts.
No, I'm with you. Like I said, for the most part I think the thread is going decently enough.
No one in the government is seriously considering a ban on guns.
One party cares so much they went into a winnable election while riding on minority votes without putting in work, while operating on a platform of our freedoms, loses it, and makes it harder because of their myopic arrogance. They don't care about minority rights as much as they care about minority votes. Just like how they actively profess wanting to protect minorities but are the first to strip us our means of self defense.
Self defense is not a delusion. I'd rather have a gun on me than without. What am I going to do if a man tries to rape me? Call the police? Fuck that. I will take matters into my own hands.
https://www.gq.com/story/why-women-own-guns
Genuinely curious what you mean here. Reading the article I can see the argument for a woman wanting to own a gun, but I'm missing the point where you mean that the Democratic party is actively trying to stop minorities (and I assume you are including women in this discussion) from owning them? I mean, for instance it was Reagan that signed the Mulford Act.
EDIT: Dammit phisheep :P