Gun Control Discussion

[Lord Raven]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole?wprov=sfsi1

Doesn't seem to say anything too different if at all

Stop using anecdotal evidence lol

You said "more guns in Wyoming but less crime" implying there's a causation/correlation effect, but that's not logically sound for the reason I brought up. You can't say the correlation is the cause of lower crime, and what Tryhard said is true but it's also true that places that had heavier gun crime to begin with probably try to enforce stricter laws.

I have no idea why you linked shit about the UK when Tryhard debunked it (hey try responding to other people) and I asked specifically about Chicago/Illinois in comparison to Wyoming. That is what the argument is.

That NICS thing you listed doesn't apply to private dealers

Besides mandatory background checks are part of gun control

Why don't you respond to things point by point with multiple quotes? It makes it seem like you're intentionally twisting what I say, ignoring parts of it, and then using that to say whatever you want.

[Life]

I'll answer the last question now and the rest later.

I'm on my phone. Too much of a hassle to quote individual things. And plus, I like to refer to the whole as a proper rebuttal with coherant points.

Oh and regarding Illinois, go down the site I provided. As I stated, Chicago statistics before and after gun control legislation is listed there.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Moblin Major General]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole?wprov=sfsi1

Doesn't seem to say anything too different if at all

Stop using anecdotal evidence lol

You said "more guns in Wyoming but less crime" implying there's a causation/correlation effect, but that's not logically sound for the reason I brought up. You can't say the correlation is the cause of lower crime, and what Tryhard said is true but it's also true that places that had heavier gun crime to begin with probably try to enforce stricter laws.

I have no idea why you linked shit about the UK when Tryhard debunked it (hey try responding to other people) and I asked specifically about Chicago/Illinois in comparison to Wyoming. That is what the argument is.

That NICS thing you listed doesn't apply to private dealers

Besides mandatory background checks are part of gun control

Why don't you respond to things point by point with multiple quotes? It makes it seem like you're intentionally twisting what I say, ignoring parts of it, and then using that to say whatever you want.

I'll try then, with the points you just brought up.

Anecdotal evidence is all you're going to get on either side. Every encounter with a gun is different, and it poses different issues anywhere, from where they are lacked when they shouldn't be, to societies that are incompatible with guns. Even the "facts" you have posted are still anecdotal.

What constitutes a "private dealer?" If they aren't licensed (unless it's gifting or by way of a personal relationship between vendor and customer), then it should be illegal, and non-licensed dealers shouldn't be provided a venue in gun shows.

I agree with background checks, but only to the logical extent. If someone with Aspergers is denied a permit or a gun even if they are of sound mind, that's a little ridiculous.

Everybody really needs to look into this. If gun control were to be successful in the US, it would have to be after either something truly tragic or if the military itself is close to total disarmament, neither of which is likely in the foreseeable future.

@Raven: I refuse to believe that you are in the right in almost every argument you have with life. I may disagree with him a great deal, but I at least can hold a conversation without yelling "soapbox." If he's preaching to the choir, at least he's doing it to a choir that goes out into the community. I doubt you'll even give me the time of day after this, but at least acknowledge you might be wrong. I do all the time, especially when talking to almost anyone in my region. Maybe gun control can happen, but I'll be damned if I live to see it.

[Res]

Everybody really needs to look into this. If gun control were to be successful in the US, it would have to be after either something truly tragic or if the military itself is close to total disarmament, neither of which is likely in the foreseeable future.

I think the likes of Sandy Hook prove that there is nothing truly tragic enough for the U.S.

I agree with the military (and I'd add police) disarmament, though. I fully understand why people would argue for an armed populace as long as the military and police wield the weapons they do.

[Deltre]

My stance on this whole thing is a pretty simple one, which I'd like to preface by saying I've only ever shot a few rounds off at a buddy's place with no other real claim to a horse in this race.

Don't ban guns, It's really that simple. Even these micro-bans and baby-steps towards discouraging and demonizing what is no more than a tool are getting ridiculous in my opinion. The tool is not, and never will be to blame even if a handful of microphallused criminals feel emboldened by this particular tools' ease of use.

Why do I believe this? Because whether or not I or anyone else ever finds themselves in a situation where they need a gun is irrelevant. The Bill of Rights is not subjective to me. That would make it a Bill of Wants or Bill of Needs, but it is a Bill of Rights. As such, Whether I will ever own a firearm is irrelevant to me. Just as I have the right to be an irredeemable ass if I so choose with no legal penalty (within reason), so to do I have the right to own a firearm so long as I am a mentally competent individual. And even then, I think some of the restricting factors are pretty stupid, as someone else pointed out, but that's neither here nor there. It's also worth mentioning that this right does not in fact come from a need to hunt or defend oneself on a personal level, but in case a tyrannical government ever decides to oppress the people at large a la 1776 Great Britain. Whether I can find my food at the grocery store or learn other methods of self-defense does not matter because that was never the implication to begin with.

Is gun control effective at reducing crimes? Depends on what you mean really. It goes without saying that banning guns would eventually see a reduction in gun crime, and I don't really see any other outcome in the long term. If you're looking to ask "would less deaths be attributed to violent crime" I'd also answer that with a yes. That said, I'm dubious at best to think that banning guns would result in a sharp dropoff of all crime. I won't go in too deep on this one because I don't have any sources lined up and can't be bothered to grab a few at the minute, but I will say the following; if you took a place like Chicago and removed all traces of legally owned firearms you would not see a satisfactory decline in overall crimes committed. While the average Joe probably won't feel as confident without a firearm, you can bet that the feeling of empowerment would find its way to all of those with illegally purchased firearms in a heartbeat, some of whom would think twice previously in fear of retaliation. Excluding gangs/cartels/mobsters though, most gun related deaths are just symptoms of an underlying issue. The effect instead of the cause, if you will. In my eyes, trying to treat urban crime by removing legal firearms is like trying to treat a broken leg with band-aids and mommy's kisses.

Now as for my solution, I'd say two things really need to happen here (USA) for anything significant to happen.

1. Mental illness first and foremost needs to be de-stigmatized as this damning all-encompassing form of bonafide crazy. Are there people with mental illness who might fit that description by ordinary standards? Sure, a very, VERY small subset I suppose. But 99.5% of individuals who suffer from any form of mental illness are just normal people, put plainly. If taking a trip to a qualified expert were seen as no more abnormal than a medical check-up I'd bet anything you would see not only a sharp decrease in ALL crime, but a large increase in the happiness in the population at large and all the benefits that would entail that are largely irrelevant to this discussion.

2. Said treatment should be damn near, if not free. For the record I mean government funded, not volunteer based. The people that need this treatment the most are the people least likely to be able to afford it. It's no secret that with high rates of poverty come higher rates of crime. This pattern can be seen in almost any example. That said, it makes no sense at all to bar the people most susceptible to falling into crime from taking preventative measures with an absurd cost barrier. Mental health is every bit as important, if not more important than physical health, and not just in relation to crime.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Deltre

[Tryhard]

Why do I believe this? Because whether or not I or anyone else ever finds themselves in a situation where they need a gun is irrelevant. The Bill of Rights is not subjective to me. That would make it a Bill of Wants or Bill of Needs, but it is a Bill of Rights. As such, Whether I will ever own a firearm is irrelevant to me. Just as I have the right to be an irredeemable ass if I so choose with no legal penalty (within reason), so to do I have the right to own a firearm so long as I am a mentally competent individual. And even then, I think some of the restricting factors are pretty stupid, as someone else pointed out, but that's neither here nor there.

The second amendment tends to be the one that is the most archaic, because when it was written the primary firearms were ineffective muskets and that lends itself to some confusion about what a 'well-regulated militia' is. Not that I'm really fully against America choosing to retain firearm ownership, it just baffles me as an outsider. I suppose my experience of looking around of any implication of 'taking the guns away' is generally this reaction.

That said, if the Bill of Rights is not subjective (I mean, aside from the government blatantly going against it, such as Japanese Americans in 1942, where their "rights" became "privileges" that were then taken away), then what do you think about all the times it has been amended since its conception, such as, y'know, adding an amendment against slavery?

Edited September 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Deltre]

The second amendment tends to be the one that is the most archaic, because when it was written the primary firearms were ineffective muskets and that lends itself to some confusion about what a 'well-regulated militia' is. Not that I'm really fully against America choosing to retain firearm ownership, it just baffles me as an outsider. I suppose my experience of looking around of any implication of 'taking the guns away' is generally this reaction.

That said, if the Bill of Rights is not subjective (I mean, aside from the government blatantly going against it, such as Japanese Americans in 1942, where their "rights" became "privileges" that were then taken away), then what do you think about all the times it has been amended since its conception, such as, y'know, adding an amendment against slavery?

I agree that at its inception the writers could not have possibly foreseen the circumstances surrounding the issues today. Which is exactly why its so vague to begin with. That said, none of that invalidates the fact that the reasoning behind its creation is still very much a presence in today's world, and as such, should not be completely discarded in favor of something else. If we lived in a society where there was no chance of a government becoming so omnipotent that it posed a legitimate threat to the safety of its own citizens, then I would say it might be worth looking at. Until such a time, I'm firm that we shouldn't do anything to touch it. As for the 'well-regulated milita' bit, again, it's intentionally non-descriptive. Think about it: if they had specifically cited whatever firearms and standards were available at the time of creation, then the whole point of this amendment would be completely pointless. It would only be inclusive of muskets or whatever they were using at the time, defeating the purpose of creating an armed populace that could oppose tyranny, should the need arise. Because it's so vague, and considering the intent, it's reasonable to infer that the founding fathers intended the firearms of the population to equal that of the firearms wielded by the government. By refusing to give specific examples of technology that could reasonably be outdated before some of the original writers had died, they ensure that the principles it puts forth remain timeless. It's nothing short of genius really. We can not fight off a tyrannical government in the 21st century with the tools of the 18th century, no matter how you look at it. Whether or not this scenario will ever come to pass, well, who's really to say? In the event of such a scenario it's pretty clear what was intended if you look at the history surrounding it in conjunction with the actual product itself.

I don't really understand your second point, to be honest. The government making horrible decisions during the WW2 era doesn't have anything at all to do with the second amendment. If anything, it just proves that the government is capable of making terrible, oppressive decisions that would necessitate second amendment rights. Now, the reason outcry didn't happen in the 40's is more of a case of bystander effect, but its not relevant to this discussion. As for the 14th amendment, that's textbook fair play. Slavery was and is an archaic idea at the time, something obvious to you and I that was not so commonly accepted at the time. That's why the constitution has provisions for the amendment process. The idea of a tyrannical government is not, has never been, and I'd go as far as to say never will be an archaic idea. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that abolishing slavery adds rights instead of removing rights.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Deltre

[Tryhard]

it's reasonable to infer that the founding fathers intended the firearms of the population to equal that of the firearms wielded by the government.

I'm not so sure we can be presumptuous about the opinions of dead men, personally. Maybe they would still support free firearm use in their modern efficiency or they wouldn't. I wouldn't feel comfortable saying one way or another, but that's just me.

As for the rest, I question the plausibility of a populace taking on highly trained army personnel and military technology and resources without external help, even if it was tyrannical. I think that's just a pretty poor argument substitution for the fact that people like firearms as a hobby or for personal defense in minor cases (burglars or whichever), and I would have a lot more respect if they just said that.

My point was mainly that it has been evident through US history that the constitution can be amended and changed according to the ideals of the current time, which doesn't exactly rule out a change to the second amendment. I don't think it'll happen, but it could nonetheless. The point about Japanese Americans is that I also have qualms about you strictly calling them rights - we have seen them as temporary privileges at times throughout the US, including the NSA subverting "rights" by monitoring its populace. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, as George Carlin said. But that was mainly as an aside.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Res]

I think that, even without banning guns, it'd be prudent if steps could be taken to adjust people's attitudes and expectations of firearms. For one, most studies show (a couple of links here and here) that you're not any safer carrying a gun on your person or in your home. And that second link contains three examples of ordinary citizens who did use their guns to prevent crimes; although they were all successful, the outcomes and the legacy their actions have had are mixed.

From speaking to a couple of people who've been shot, even a non-serious gunshot wound can cause pain and issues years down the line. How often in TV shows are characters shot in multiple episodes, yet each time they recover almost instantly, and very rarely are any long-lasting effects seen.

And there could be more education/emphasis on the mental fortitude required to react appropriately in a situation, too. Unless you've had significant training, you have no idea how you might react. People panic. People shoot unarmed suspects (or innocent bystanders). Heck, I know enough to know not to trust myself; I've reacted very swiftly when my kids have been hurt, swiftly enough that I haven't been in full control of the situation.

[Deltre]

I'm not so sure we can be presumptuous about the opinions of dead men, personally. Maybe they would still support free firearm use in their modern efficiency or they wouldn't. I wouldn't feel comfortable saying one way or another, but that's just me.

As for the rest, I question the plausibility of a populace taking on highly trained army personnel and military technology and resources without external help, even if it was tyrannical. I think that's just a pretty poor argument substitution for the fact that people like firearms as a hobby or for personal defense in minor cases (burglars or whichever), and I would have a lot more respect if they just said that.

My point was mainly that it has been evident through US history that the constitution can be amended and changed according to the ideals of the current time, which doesn't exactly rule out a change to the second amendment. I don't think it'll happen, but it could nonetheless. The point about Japanese Americans is that I also have qualms about you strictly calling them rights - we have seen them as temporary privileges at times throughout the US, including the NSA subverting "rights" by monitoring its populace. Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, as George Carlin said. But that was mainly as an aside.

I wouldn't necessarily call it presumptuous to infer, not assume, what the writers intended. If we accept that the purpose of the second amendment is to protect ourselves from government, and we accept that what they had at the time would not in any way fly in today's times, coupled with the intentional vagueness of the original writing, it's not a stretch at all to come to the conclusion that they wanted us as citizens to have the ability to fight an oppressive government regardless of time period or technology available.

Without going too much into the technicalities of a war, I will say this: if a war ever were to be fought again on American soil with the American people vs. the American government, the war would be almost entirely decided on the ground. The tactics employed in foreign wars would not apply here. They could not and would not airstrike/drone strike/nuke us into the submission because it would completely defeat the purpose. Even if they did, they'd essentially be fighting for dominance over a smoldering crater at that stage. In other words: pointless. All that said, I completely agree with you in that many people engage in firearms collecting as a form of hobby, or hunt for sport. I too have my grievances with some of this, but still doesn't invalidate the fact that we have these rights because the government does shady things and that fact isn't going anywhere. It doesn't change the fact that we have that right as American citizens to own a firearm because of the very real threat of a government overstepping its bounds.

Now for that last point I admit that it's an interesting stance. I suppose the best way I can put it is that depending on exactly what you're suggesting be changed it could be relatively harmless to the ideological principles behind the original. The problem is that making guns strictly harder to obtain, without logical reason, goes against that thought entirely. One such thing that I would be indifferent to or possibly even supportive of would be holding gun shows to the same standards as any other firearms retailer. Anything further than that, including a large number of proposed changes that don't even mention this, I'm pretty against.

Carlin was an absolute genius far ahead of his time in my eyes. One thing he was really great at was encouraging really profound, critical thinking delivered to you in a humorous way. So when he said "Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away." I immediately draw the conclusion that we're supposed to make some noise when someone tries to do just that. I understand that it's a comedy routine and therefore somewhat subjective but that was my take away.

In my eyes, however, we didn't have our rights taken away with the NSA debacle. We gave them away. I believe that you mentioned you were an outsider looking in on the situation, which far from invalidates your opinion. It's interesting to know that on the whole people actually supported this crap when it was initially conceptualized, on the grounds that it would "protect our borders" or whatever meaningless platitudes they put forth at the time. Again, with Japanese internment camps it was much of the same. The population at large willingly relinquished the rights of a subset of a smaller subset of the people. The government didn't take anything that we ourselves weren't willing to give. And in the case of internment camps, it really screwed a portion of American that had done nothing wrong because the population as a whole decided that the government could have their rights.

I ended up writing way more than I intended and feel that we've strayed a little from the topic so I'll just say this. I respect your opinion but firmly disagree some key points. As much as I dislike a lot of things about gun culture, the one thing I can honestly respect is their outright refusal to give up their rights for a temporary feeling of safety. As much as it truly may not seem it, and as great as those in power are at putting a spin on things, at the end of the day the people are what give the government power. When we as a whole choose to remain silent or stand with the sometimes outright terrifying decisions of the government is when we get horrible things like slavery, internment camps, or the worldwide joke that is the NSA. When we adamantly refuse to let them get away with their BS we get things like the Civil Rights movement and more recently LGBT rights. Ben Franklin said it best when he said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Giving up guns entirely in order to "feel safe" goes against everything the country was founded on, and feels like such a cop-out to me. A gun is a tool, nothing more. If anything, we need to put more emphasis on when and how to use said tool, and focus on proper training.

[Tryhard]

As much as I dislike a lot of things about gun culture, the one thing I can honestly respect is their outright refusal to give up their rights for a temporary feeling of safety.

I've always sort of seen it like that, but in my mind it is more about paranoia of what could happen and how having a gun could make you safer (which may or may not even help at all, Res posted some studies which seemed to imply that it does not). If nothing else, I fully disagree with the NRA rhetoric that there needs to be more guns, because that's the only thing that will stop shooters. Seems just like opportunism and nothing else to me and wrong above all else. I will say that plenty of countries do fine without weapons at all, and while I would have a lot to complain about my government (who wouldn't?), I don't really see a bloody revolution in the forseeable future. Just the feeling I get from when I see some people treat the second ammendment as if it is divine, while it was constructed by men who valued certain things at the time and isn't necessarily 'right' or 'wrong'. My main issue is that I'm unsure on how your little peashooter is going to do anything if the government come around with the military presumedly on their side kicking down your door. Or with tanks. It isn't going to help, likely.

Otherwise, I more or less agree with you on the fact that the American people can be apathetic, but I find it particularly funny how the second amendment seems to be the one they care most about as some parts of the population even seem keen to give the other amendments up. But like you said, this was diverging from the topic.

Now for that last point I admit that it's an interesting stance. I suppose the best way I can put it is that depending on exactly what you're suggesting be changed it could be relatively harmless to the ideological principles behind the original. The problem is that making guns strictly harder to obtain, without logical reason, goes against that thought entirely. One such thing that I would be indifferent to or possibly even supportive of would be holding gun shows to the same standards as any other firearms retailer. Anything further than that, including a large number of proposed changes that don't even mention this, I'm pretty against.

I wasn't really suggesting anything in particular. I mean, all I really know from the American people is statistics like this, though I'm not sure how accurate or legitimate they are. As far as I know, this is only really represented in around 10 states, but legislation possibly pushing for it is continually slapped down by politicians. And it isn't really doing anything when it isn't fully represented federally.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/05/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-say-claim-90-support-gun-background/ (not sure how affiliated this is with Politifact, it seems to be)

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tryhard

[Phoenix Wright]

The second amendment tends to be the one that is the most archaic, because when it was written the primary firearms were ineffective muskets and that lends itself to some confusion about what a 'well-regulated militia' is. Not that I'm really fully against America choosing to retain firearm ownership, it just baffles me as an outsider. I suppose my experience of looking around of any implication of 'taking the guns away' is generally this reaction.

That said, if the Bill of Rights is not subjective (I mean, aside from the government blatantly going against it, such as Japanese Americans in 1942, where their "rights" became "privileges" that were then taken away), then what do you think about all the times it has been amended since its conception, such as, y'know, adding an amendment against slavery?

well, he's right, the bill of rights isn't supposed to be subjective.

but because it's so vaguely written its intended meaning is lost. also the document was written over a very short period of time and is dated af. we need a better system imho

[Tryhard]

well, he's right, the bill of rights isn't supposed to be subjective.

but because it's so vaguely written its intended meaning is lost. also the document was written over a very short period of time and is dated af. we need a better system imho

Sure, isn't meant to be, but it's been treated as subjective over the years, and like you said, is flawed.

I imagine that most people only care about what the founding fathers thought rather than trying to change or completely disregard it, though.

[Lord Raven]

What constitutes a "private dealer?" If they aren't licensed (unless it's gifting or by way of a personal relationship between vendor and customer), then it should be illegal, and non-licensed dealers shouldn't be provided a venue in gun shows.

The definition is highly uniform among multiple sources I've checked, but you must be licensed if that is either a) the center of your business or b) your livelihood. A private dealer engages in occasional sale of firearms, and they are not actually required to be licensed at all, which means that they can sell a gun without a background check. This is not illegal.

I agree with background checks, but only to the logical extent. If someone with Aspergers is denied a permit or a gun even if they are of sound mind, that's a little ridiculous.

I don't think that's quite what a background check will ban, but the entire purpose of gun control is to pass such regulations, but as it stands they are not universal. In fact, what you suggested about gun shows is actually a huge part of what gun control/reform would consist of. Somehow this is being interpreted as "we gotta take the guns away."

If anyone really wants to know where I stand with this, I would put harsh limits on handguns and require universal background checks for every gun. When I say universal, I mean uniform standards; every state has to have the same standard. With one exception: you must have an address located in a rural place to relax certain limits on hunting equipment. I do not agree with a city having stricter gun laws than another on the grounds of a point Tryhard brings up (and he words it better than me) where you can just buy stuff from a more relaxed place and then use it in a city.

EDIT: I am also in favor of abolishing firearms, but that's about as practical to me as saying "I believe in world peace."

Edited September 15, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

Sure, isn't meant to be, but it's been treated as subjective over the years, and like you said, is flawed.

I imagine that most people only care about what the founding fathers thought rather than trying to change or completely disregard it, though.

agreed. i have an issue with seeing law through a subjective lens, though. to me it should be clear as day whether or not something is violating the law. the subjectivity that i sometimes like and sometimes dislike is the decision making based on the laws (eg, some rapists getting life in prison vs others getting 8 months or something)

unfortunately for me, that point is true as well.

[Life]

The definition is highly uniform among multiple sources I've checked, but you must be licensed if that is either a) the center of your business or b) your livelihood. A private dealer engages in occasional sale of firearms, and they are not actually required to be licensed at all, which means that they can sell a gun without a background check. This is not illegal.

I don't think that's quite what a background check will ban, but the entire purpose of gun control is to pass such regulations, but as it stands they are not universal. In fact, what you suggested about gun shows is actually a huge part of what gun control/reform would consist of. Somehow this is being interpreted as "we gotta take the guns away."

If anyone really wants to know where I stand with this, I would put harsh limits on handguns and require universal background checks for every gun. When I say universal, I mean uniform standards; every state has to have the same standard. With one exception: you must have an address located in a rural place to relax certain limits on hunting equipment. I do not agree with a city having stricter gun laws than another on the grounds of a point Tryhard brings up (and he words it better than me) where you can just buy stuff from a more relaxed place and then use it in a city.

I'll grant you the first point because I think that it is logical and correct. But the issue that I have is that most people on the other side of the gun debate believe that nobody is liscensed and background checks don't happen in general.

Private sales of firearms should be illegal because it is like selling a gun out of the back of a car. I can get behind it easily.

Where I differ from you is on the types of guns. First of all, I used an M16A1 during my army service and I believe that an AR-15 (the semi-automatic version of the M16) is excellent as a self defensive weapon. It is lightweight and very easy to maintain along with having a caliber that is much less powerful than your average hunting rifle.

I also don't believe that the law should be uniform across the country because that infringes on states' rights. But that is really a discussion of big government vs. smaller government.

Where I put my foot down is a gun registry. I am going to assume that you are for one (you didn't outright say it but implied) and while I can understand the logic behind it, I don't agree because I believe that it allows the government to target residences with firearms if it were to ever become totalitarian and wished to disarm the populace. And that's a risk that I don't want to take.