Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

[Constable Reggie]

Your claims that an assault weapon/magazine ban will reduce gun violence. We already had one, so show some citations that attribute the decrease in gun violence to it.

Because it's a claim you stated that has already been tested.

You can't just say "Banning alcohol will reduce drunk violence/murders, therefore we should do it" while completely ignoring the Prohibition and the things we learned from it.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Raven]

Your claims that an assault weapon/magazine ban will reduce gun violence. We already had one, so show some citations that attribute the decrease in gun violence to it.

Because it's a claim you stated that has already been tested.

You can't just say "Banning alcohol will reduce drunk violence/murders, therefore we should do it" without citation if there's already been an alcohol prohibition.

You say it's already been tested. However, are you sure it's going to be exactly the same regulation as the 1994 version that may be passed by Obama as a result of the Connecticut school shooting?

[Constable Reggie]

Assuming that a full-on assault rifle ban would be impossible to pass in Congress, it's incredibly likely that a new assault weapons ban will follow pretty similarly to the 1994 version, or simply be exactly it with maybe a few additions (see: Sen. Feinstein). Minor changes to the old version will not hugely change the outcome. If you have evidence that claims otherwise, please show it.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Raven]

Assuming that a full-on assault rifle ban would be impossible to pass in Congress, it's incredibly likely that a new assault weapons ban will follow pretty similarly to the 1994 version, or simply be exactly it with maybe a few additions (see: Sen. Feinstein). Minor changes to the old version will not hugely change the outcome. If you have evidence that claims otherwise, please show it.

I see. Well at this point in time it's all a matter of opinion, no matter what figures from previous years-old passed laws produced. I am curious as to the exact details of the up and coming proposed bill regarding firearms.

[Constable Reggie]

Except it's not only a matter of opinion. Discounting the last ban (it's not that old) and simply saying "don't worry, we believe it'll work this time" without understanding or fixing what was wrong with the last one (from what I can tell of Feinstein's new version of the ban, she's going way overboard) is ridiculous and stupid.

[Raven]

Except it's not only a matter of opinion. Discounting the last ban (it's not that old) and simply saying "don't worry, we believe it'll work this time" without understanding or fixing what was wrong with the last one (from what I can tell of Feinstein's new version of the ban, she's going way overboard) is ridiculous and stupid.

It's up to the government to understand or fix the previous one to implement a law that will achieve what it's set out to accomplish. I'm just hoping whatever it is they plan will work. Just because the previous one didn't much affect the rate of homicides involving guns, it doesn't mean that assault rifles and such shouldn't be once again made illegal in the hope that future mass shootings will be averted, or at the very least have an affect on how many people would be killed by a determined attacker.

[Anouleth]

I am not saying weapons are the same, I'm illustrating exactly my point which all of you hold: The line at which personal ownership of any weapon is deemed safe is a personal one, and removing the entirety of any given kind, while potentially helpful, can be a whole world of annoyance and unnecessary pain. I think you'd agree that a world without knives would have less knife crimes, less effective than guns or not, but I doubt any of you here would actually be okay with actually banning all bladed implements. Because it goes too far in its quest for preventing harm, despite the positive effects it would probably have on the knife homicide rate.

Well, no, it's not a personal one because it affects everyone. If all my neighbours decide to go out and buy guns, I am statistically less safe, just as I would be less safe if they failed to own fire alarms, or failed to vaccinate their children. Indeed, that is the entire concept of public safety in a nutshell, that actions you take can put other people at risk. And because that decision affects me, I have the right to influence it through the means of representative government, in the same way I can demand that everyone owns a fire alarm, or that everyone vaccinates their children. It might be nice to live in a world where people's actions didn't affect each other, where negative externalities don't exist, that people really can be rugged individuals and islands unto themselves, but we don't.

Even in the UK, guns are not prohibited in "entirety", it's just that people actually have to provide a valid reason to own one.

Also, I think most people would object to prohibiting knives because knives are frequently used in all sorts of daily activities. The same can't really be said of guns. Even if you live in the countryside, you probably don't go hunting every day. That is to say, the distinction between knives and guns is not an arbitrary one.

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm not arguing against that, though.

If you're not then doesn't it make you seem rather hypocritical?

I am aware of this and had such things mentioned in an earlier draft of my previous post. But not everyone stays within such boundaries, and this costs thousands of lives in the USA every year.

So do cheeseburgers and french fries. Doesn't mean we should ban McDonald's.

I'm not doubting you for a second. You're not going to get the same death toll using a handgun compared to an assault rifle, either. And that's the goal of this whole thing, is it not? To lower the numbers of homicides by gun?

The point being that the vast majority of gun crime and thus gun murder is carried out using pistols. Banning assault rifles to stop gun homicide would be like banning katanas to stop stabbings. Some people might die from it but it's rare enough that the ban doesn't effectively do anything.

Nevermind that what counts as an assault weapon is nebulously defined at best.

But we're not discussing the banning of blades here, we're discussing the banning of guns. Knives are already banned in public here, for the most part. And as for whether it may or may not lower gun crime, discussing it in this manner will do nothing. Putting it into practice is the only sure way of finding out. Leaving things as they are will not help towards solving anything.

You're making the argument that if it can possibly save lives it should be done. I am saying that you don't actually believe that by making an argument to ban all knives as well. Banning every kind of bladed implement from use would conceivably lower knife homicides. Are you saying this is untrue? So then do you disagree with the banning of all knives?

I'm not sure why I should define an assault rifle when you didn't question my usage of it earlier, even using the term yourself.

Pointing out the silliness of the term was not entirely relevant. Now it is.

So please stop equivocating. What is an assault rifle? What is a high-capacity magazine? What are these things you are saying should be banned?

To Anouleth:

Well, no, it's not a personal one because it affects everyone. If all my neighbours decide to go out and buy guns, I am statistically less safe, just as I would be less safe if they failed to own fire alarms, or failed to vaccinate their children. Indeed, that is the entire concept of public safety in a nutshell, that actions you take can put other people at risk. And because that decision affects me, I have the right to influence it through the means of representative government, in the same way I can demand that everyone owns a fire alarm, or that everyone vaccinates their children. It might be nice to live in a world where people's actions didn't affect each other, where negative externalities don't exist, that people really can be rugged individuals and islands unto themselves, but we don't.

I am saying where you draw the line to ban weapons is a personal one, not deciding to own one.

In addition, you are taking the statistical information and drawing an entirely erroneous conclusion. Introduction of thicker helmets in early modern warfare lead to an astounding increase in head wound patients. What conclusion would you draw from this when you look at these results? In light of this would you have mandated people not wear heavier helmets?

Also, I think most people would object to prohibiting knives because knives are frequently used in all sorts of daily activities. The same can't really be said of guns. Even if you live in the countryside, you probably don't go hunting every day. That is to say, the distinction between knives and guns is not an arbitrary one.

Certainly. I am not arguing that banning knives would not have an enormous impact on daily life.

But are you not saying that banning knives in their entirety would save lives?

Edited January 15, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

It's up to the government to understand or fix the previous one to implement a law that will achieve what it's set out to accomplish. I'm just hoping whatever it is they plan will work. Just because the previous one didn't much affect the rate of homicides involving guns, it doesn't mean that assault rifles and such shouldn't be once again made illegal in the hope that future mass shootings will be averted, or at the very least have an affect on how many people would be killed by a determined attacker.

No, it means that knowing that the last assault weapons/magazine ban didn't work, we shouldn't be jumping the gun on controversial legislation (that I'm willing to bet is likely not being well thought out), that again likely won't work, because of an emotional response to something tragic. Which is what they're doing.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Raven]

If you're not then doesn't it make you seem rather hypocritical?

Explain.

So do cheeseburgers and french fries. Doesn't mean we should ban McDonald's.

Okay.

The point being that the vast majority of gun crime and thus gun murder is carried out using pistols. Banning assault rifles to stop gun homicide would be like banning katanas to stop stabbings. Some people might die from it but it's rare enough that the ban doesn't effectively do anything.

Nevermind that what counts as an assault weapon is nebulously defined at best.

Okay.

You're making the argument that if it can possibly save lives it should be done. I am saying that you don't actually believe that by making an argument to ban all knives as well. Banning every kind of bladed implement from use would conceivably lower knife homicides. Are you saying this is untrue? So then do you disagree with the banning of all knives?

No to the first question, and no to the second question. However it's already against the law to carry a knife in public without good reason. And some types of knife are already banned outright.

Pointing out the silliness of the term was not entirely relevant. Now it is.

So please stop equivocating. What is an assault rifle? What is a high-capacity magazine? What are these things you are saying should be banned?

I think any magazine larger, and any gun more more powerful, than police-issued handguns and magazines should be banned from public ownership. I'm about to head off to bed so I'm not going to research specifics here. Maybe tomorrow if you so request specifics.

No, it means that knowing that the last assault weapons/magazine ban didn't work, we shouldn't be jumping the gun on controversial legislation (that I'm willing to bet is likely not being well thought out), that again likely won't work, because of an emotional response to something tragic. Which is what they're doing.

Alright, let's say you're right here. So what would you suggest as a method to try to prevent future mass murders from happening, or to at least lower the total death tolls of any shootings that will occur in future?

[Constable Reggie]

Alright, let's say you're right here. So what would you suggest as a method to try to prevent future mass murders from happening, or to at least lower the total death tolls of any shootings that will occur in future?

I don't know. If I were to try and produce or suggest legislation regarding this stuff, I would heavily research past shootings, compare previous similar laws to our current ones, and make an educated guess on what inherently causes them to happen and what our laws do/did to prevent/allow them. I'm willing to bet hardly any of the new gun bill proponents are really thinking about this kind of stuff, and are simply blaming guns because they're guns and guns kill people. I believe it goes far deeper than that, banning guns isn't going to fix the inherent issues that causes shootings, and will simply piss off a great percentage of the population.

Let me ask you a relevant question. How effective do you think the TSA is and why?

[Esau of Isaac]

Explain.

Does it not make you seem hypocritical to on one hand support the complete banning of guns whatever the cost because it could possibly save lives, but not knives for the same reason?

No to the first question, and no to the second question. However it's already against the law to carry a knife in public without good reason. And some types of knife are already banned outright.

And some types of guns are already banned outright. I'm talking about the complete lack of ownership of any bladed implement. This would definitely lower knife homicide, wouldn't it?

I think any magazine larger, and any gun more more powerful, than police-issued handguns and magazines should be banned from public ownership. I'm about to head off to bed so I'm not going to research specifics here. Maybe tomorrow if you so request specifics.

Yeah, I'll need specifics. A magazine larger than which respective firearm? More powerful in what way?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Narga_Rocks]

So do cheeseburgers and french fries. Doesn't mean we should ban McDonald's.

What kind of argument is that? Guns don't kill the person using it, most of the time. It's not even remotely the same thing. You might as well say "my cat likes yarn therefore we shouldn't ban guns".

[Esau of Isaac]

What kind of argument is that? Guns don't kill the person using it, most of the time. It's not even remotely the same thing. You might as well say "my cat likes yarn therefore we shouldn't ban guns".

His argument is saying that people die from guns all the time, which means they should be banned. People die from several things all the time. The fact that people die from it shouldn't be an indicator that they should be banned. It might mean that people need to be educated regarding them, or it might be something that is just prone to harm people. Tobacco is incredibly harmful and claims thousands of lives a year, but you'd be hard pressed to find people that want to ban it outright.

I'm not saying that guns are directly equatable to McDonald's, but simply that it's silly to ban something because deaths can and sometimes do happen from their use.

[Rehab]

I was going to attempt to word this better, but certain types of knives like switchblades do indeed have their ownership regulated, if not made illegal, depending on one's location. Simply being useful for the purposes of hurting somebody admittedly isn't guaranteed to to be used as a reason to outlaw something, but making value judgements on what's lethal/dangerous/designed-for-the-purpose-of-being-used-against-other-people enough is indeed sometimes done for specific varieties of a class of objects for the purposes of restricting their use and hopefully the damage they'll cause in the future, including some classes of objects that are not all considered equally dangerous.

I think whether that actually causes an appreciable drop in knife violence is at least a valid concern of its own, but that's not a reason to dismiss the idea categorically.

buh fuck my brain words

Edited January 16, 2013 by Rehab

[Balcerzak]

You keep brining that up but you can't possibly tell me that you don't realize that there is a world of difference between guns and knives.

But when all weapons are the same to you, one could play this game in the opposite direction and ask why civilians can't have their own tanks or nukes or whatever.

Why can't civilians have tanks? It seems like it would be a useful thing, and would aid in the local militia.

Nukes are probably just too expensive for your average citizen, though.

[Narga_Rocks]

His argument is saying that people die from guns all the time, which means they should be banned. People die from several things all the time. The fact that people die from it shouldn't be an indicator that they should be banned. It might mean that people need to be educated regarding them, or it might be something that is just prone to harm people. Tobacco is incredibly harmful and claims thousands of lives a year, but you'd be hard pressed to find people that want to ban it outright.

I'm not saying that guns are directly equatable to McDonald's, but simply that it's silly to ban something because deaths can and sometimes do happen from their use.

Again, if the deaths happen to people who are using the item, like mcdonalds or tobacco, I couldn't care less. The trouble, and the reason for banning some types of guns, that you are constantly ignoring no matter how many times we try to explain it to you, is that it harms others. And this is the reason why your argument is ridiculous, as you ignore the point. It's actually a similar reason for all those "no smoking" areas you might have seen. Second hand smoke kills. I suppose you are against banning cigarettes from certain venues as well?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Esau of Isaac]

Again, if the deaths happen to people who are using the item, like mcdonalds or tobacco, I couldn't care less. The trouble, and the reason for banning some types of guns, that you are constantly ignoring no matter how many times we try to explain it to you, is that it harms others. And this is the reason why your argument is ridiculous, as you ignore the point. It's actually a similar reason for all those "no smoking" areas you might have seen. Second hand smoke kills. I suppose you are against banning cigarettes from certain venues as well?

No. Because unlike the many people that have made ridiculous arguments of the sort in this topic I'm not saying anything is black and white, but instead varying shades of grey. I am not saying any and all forms of gun control are inherently unreasonable, or even that the nature of gun control in itself is unethical. The majority of the posts I have made have been about dispelling the notion that by banning all guns you will make the problem go away, or that banning guns is the most noble effort simply because it can increase safety. Both are false, or at least hypocritical because of lack of consistent application.

I'm not ignoring the stated point that guns can harm others. I am accepting it as a grim reality of their existence, the same as knives, bats, etc. While it then leads to equivocation over the myriad uses these things offer, the fact stands that there in the wrong hands, many of the things we simply enjoy in our daily lives can be abused to hurt and harm innocent people. Guns are very dangerous weapons in the wrong hands, but they are very effective tools in the right ones. What I am saying fundamentally is that we should practice on making sure that there are more right hands than wrong ones, rather than making sure there are less guns.

[Raven]

I don't know. If I were to try and produce or suggest legislation regarding this stuff, I would heavily research past shootings, compare previous similar laws to our current ones, and make an educated guess on what inherently causes them to happen and what our laws do/did to prevent/allow them. I'm willing to bet hardly any of the new gun bill proponents are really thinking about this kind of stuff, and are simply blaming guns because they're guns and guns kill people. I believe it goes far deeper than that, banning guns isn't going to fix the inherent issues that causes shootings, and will simply piss off a great percentage of the population.

Let me ask you a relevant question. How effective do you think the TSA is and why?

Your own idea of legislation research sounds good, but I'm not sure why you think that the new bill won't be considering all sorts of things, maybe even things which you may not have even considered yourself. Assumptions are all anyone can make for now until some sort of official bill is proposed.

I'm not sure what you mean by a great percentage. Just because a certain group of people are loud and everyone hears them, it doesn't necessarily mean they are a majority.

I'm unfamiliar with the term TSA. Please explain.

Does it not make you seem hypocritical to on one hand support the complete banning of guns whatever the cost because it could possibly save lives, but not knives for the same reason?

And some types of guns are already banned outright. I'm talking about the complete lack of ownership of any bladed implement. This would definitely lower knife homicide, wouldn't it?

I haven't once specifically stated that I support the complete banning of guns. If you have read my posts within this topic you'd know this. Your (counter-)argument of outright banning all knives is leaning on thin air with me because I have not been arguing for an outright ban on guns.

Yeah, I'll need specifics. A magazine larger than which respective firearm? More powerful in what way?

I'm not going into research mode now (I'm supposed to be working), but how many bullets does a standard issue handgun and its standard magazine issued to police carry? How powerful are these weapons? I believe these numbers are where the line should be drawn. For the police to end up coming face to face witha criminal carrying a weapon more powerful than their own is not something I support.

His argument is saying that people die from guns all the time, which means they should be banned. People die from several things all the time. The fact that people die from it shouldn't be an indicator that they should be banned. It might mean that people need to be educated regarding them, or it might be something that is just prone to harm people. Tobacco is incredibly harmful and claims thousands of lives a year, but you'd be hard pressed to find people that want to ban it outright.

I'm not saying that guns are directly equatable to McDonald's, but simply that it's silly to ban something because deaths can and sometimes do happen from their use.

No. Because unlike the many people that have made ridiculous arguments of the sort in this topic I'm not saying anything is black and white, but instead varying shades of grey. I am not saying any and all forms of gun control are inherently unreasonable, or even that the nature of gun control in itself is unethical. The majority of the posts I have made have been about dispelling the notion that by banning all guns you will make the problem go away, or that banning guns is the most noble effort simply because it can increase safety. Both are false, or at least hypocritical because of lack of consistent application.

I'm not ignoring the stated point that guns can harm others. I am accepting it as a grim reality of their existence, the same as knives, bats, etc. While it then leads to equivocation over the myriad uses these things offer, the fact stands that there in the wrong hands, many of the things we simply enjoy in our daily lives can be abused to hurt and harm innocent people. Guns are very dangerous weapons in the wrong hands, but they are very effective tools in the right ones. What I am saying fundamentally is that we should practice on making sure that there are more right hands than wrong ones, rather than making sure there are less guns.

It's a different ball game when one person is the user of something and other people are getting killed as a result. That's why smoking is banned in indoor public places and you are not allowed to go anywhere in public carrying a knife.

Going back to your "burgers kill people" comment; You assume I'm talking about guns in the general sense of "things that could kill people by any means", when in fact I'm talking about guns specifically in the sense that it is a "weapon designed to penetrate armour and kill people with minimum effort" - knives - or burgers - don't come close to this. They're all capable of killing if you're careless, but I'm talking about specific intent to murder. I'd like to see someone attempt to murder people with burgers. And I couldn't give a fuck about people who choke themselves to death because they inhaled a burger at their local McDonald's. As long as they're not killing other people with it. You can not stand in one spot and mow down a crowd of people with a knife. While dangerous in their own right, they do not come remotely close to the lethality of a gun.

[eclipse]

I think the analogy would've been better if cars were used in place of burgers. Both cars/guns require a license, and both make headlines when someone dies from them.

However, I think the spotlight should be on mental health care and not guns. If guns were truly the root of all violence, then Switzerland should be stained red with blood.

[Gone2Ground]

I think we can find some common ground here when it comes to gun control: Handguns can be a necessary evil in order to bring security to a home. Shotguns can be used for hunting, and so on. These points we can argue until the end of time about.

There is no need for you to own that SMG/Assault Rifle. At all.

[Esau of Isaac]

Your own idea of legislation research sounds good, but I'm not sure why you think that the new bill won't be considering all sorts of things, maybe even things which you may not have even considered yourself. Assumptions are all anyone can make for now until some sort of official bill is proposed.

Yeah, it would be silly to assume that these politicians have no idea what half the things that are being banned are and are just banning things because why the fuck not right?

I know this has been posted already, but it bears repeating. I'd be willing to bet most of these legislators have never touched a rifle in their life and don't know half of what they are talking about. They ban things that sound or look intimidating, without actually analyzing what is dangerous.

I haven't once specifically stated that I support the complete banning of guns. If you have read my posts within this topic you'd know this. Your (counter-)argument of outright banning all knives is leaning on thin air with me because I have not been arguing for an outright ban on guns.

You'd been arguing that if it saves lives from gun homicide then we should ban what is necessary. Banning all of them would save the most lives. I assumed this is what you were arguing, so if I missed what you were saying then that's my fault. Still, doesn't that mean at this point that you should sort of change your argument around a bit?

I'm not going into research mode now (I'm supposed to be working), but how many bullets does a standard issue handgun and its standard magazine issued to police carry?

Which police officers where? What department, and in what area?

It varies.

How powerful are these weapons? I believe these numbers are where the line should be drawn. For the police to end up coming face to face witha criminal carrying a weapon more powerful than their own is not something I support.

But what do you mean by power? Bullet velocity? Caliber? What?

Should no one be able to use .45 because most police officers chamber .9mm in their pistols?

I think we can find some common ground here when it comes to gun control: Handguns can be a necessary evil in order to bring security to a home. Shotguns can be used for hunting, and so on. These points we can argue until the end of time about.

There is no need for you to own that SMG/Assault Rifle. At all.

If when you say assault rifle you are referring to fully automatic weaponry, that is already banned except in exceedingly rare situations.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

Your own idea of legislation research sounds good, but I'm not sure why you think that the new bill won't be considering all sorts of things, maybe even things which you may not have even considered yourself. Assumptions are all anyone can make for now until some sort of official bill is proposed.

I'm not sure what you mean by a great percentage. Just because a certain group of people are loud and everyone hears them, it doesn't necessarily mean they are a majority.

I'm unfamiliar with the term TSA. Please explain.

Consider all sorts of things, hahahaha. Go look at some of the SOPA conferences and tell me with a straight face they knew what they were doing. The fact that all this new legislation is pouring in after a massacre doesn't help. It means that legislators' trains of thought are being overwritten with emotion, and not reason.

I never said a majority. Roughly 47% of households own a gun(s). and that's a great percentage.

Transportation Security Admission. It was created in response to 9/11. Tell me what how good a job you think they're doing and if what they're doing is worth the sacrifices we make.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Gone2Ground]

If when you say assault rifle you are referring to fully automatic weaponry, that is already banned except in exceedingly rare situations.

I probably used the wrong term there, my bad. I meant the things that fell under the former Federal Assualt Weapons ban lifted in 2004.

[Esau of Isaac]

I probably used the wrong term there, my bad. I meant the things that fell under the former Federal Assualt Weapons ban lifted in 2004.

Okay. But that was a lot of things that aren't harmful at all, primarily pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, and folding stocks. Even many of the guns that were banned by name had no real reason for it.

What primarily did you feel in the 94 Assault Weapons ban was something that should have stayed illegal?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Esau of Isaac