"Gun Control" that isnt directed towards handguns will not do anything

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4499 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]seriously, even if you disagree, it's pretty strait forward logic.Slashless
lol no it's not. You base everything on a premise that will never happen >if we ban guns, suicides will go down (Just look at Japan!) >if we ban guns there's your problem right there. Not going to happen. Political suicide.

still makes sence.

Still would work.

strawman btw, japan's has a high suicide rate because of it's high stress culture.

now that I think about it, if guns were legal there it would be higher.

#52 Posted by Slashless (9515 posts) -

strawman btw, japan's has a high suicide rate because of it's high stress culture.

MakeMeaSammitch

um

didn't say otherwise.

okay though. (also that's not a strawman. if anything, it'd classify as a red herring, even though it's not. lai status there sammitch)

As long as were on the topic of wishful thinking...

Who thinks gas prices will go under 3 dollars anytime soon?

remember when that sh*t was like 70 cents in Die Hard.

;[

#53 Posted by Chaos_HL21 (5288 posts) -

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]The majority of guns used to kill people are legally owned.

MakeMeaSammitch

Yes 50% of gun deaths in the US are suicide. Guns used in crimes are 80-90% illegal

it's actually more like 60-70% of gun deaths are suicides.

Sounds like a pretty good reason for a blanket ban imo.

I think it is a better idea to look at why so many peoeple want to kill themselves,

#54 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

The majority of guns used to kill people are legally owned.

MakeMeaSammitch

I made a distinction. When you learn to read let me know.

#55 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

Gun control directed towards legal handgun owners won't really do anything either. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

airshocker

Stolen from legal gun owners homes.

#56 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9227 posts) -

I've mentioned this a bunch of times. The ban being pushed is actually a closet handgun ban. Look at the organizations pushing it. The Brady Campaign used to be called the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH). They realized that banning handguns was becoming increasingly unpopular so the invented the term assault weapon. Its so broad that they can make it include handguns as well. 

Its easier for  them to garner support when they intentionally try to confuse people into thinking they are banning fully  automatic weapons.

photo.jpg

 

They are hoping the average person can't tell the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle. Most people who are for the AWB believe they are banning fully automatic firearms.

#57 Posted by General_X (9077 posts) -
But but it's so much easier to ban guns then fix the socio-economic and mental health issues that leads to their missuse! :(
#58 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

Gunz are good

UnknownSniper65

Thanks UnknownSniper for your unbiased input,

#59 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9227 posts) -

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

Gunz are good

tenaka2

Thanks UnknownSniper for your unbiased input,

You're most welcome

#60 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4412 posts) -

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Gun control directed towards legal handgun owners won't really do anything either. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

tenaka2

Stolen from legal gun owners homes.

You really think all the illegal hand guns out there are stolen? Cause there are never any crooked people at gun shops or shows.
#61 Posted by Audacitron (968 posts) -

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]The majority of guns used to kill people are legally owned.

MakeMeaSammitch

derp argument, people who want to commit suicide have unlimited avenues to do so, limiting guns wont limit the end result you are basing your argument around. the whole article is based around Intentional self-harm (suicide) (*U03,X60-X84,Y87.0) 12.4 ... ... 0.7 10.5 14.0 16.0 19.6 17.5 13.7 15.7 17.6 Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74) 6.3 ... ... 0.2 4.7 6.3 7.1 9.1 9.3 9.5 11.8 12.4 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf

actually suicides tend to be impulse decisions and stopping a person for even a few minutes can have them change their mind.

For instance, before modern guns, the most popular method of suicide was gas stove. It was quick, painless, and everybody had one. As soon as those were made obsolete by other models, suicide rates dropped by 1/3 and never recovered. 

Why do you think there are suicide bars on bridges? Putting them there to delay a suicide by 30 seconds can be all it takes to stop a suicide. for example, when they put those bars on the golden gate bridge, suicide rates dropped in the city.

The thing with guns is it's fast, easy, and painless. It's basically just a thing with a button that insta kills. There's no delay. No chance for rational thinking. That's why one of the primary indicators for suicide is whether or not somebody owns a gun. Suicides by gun more than double all other deaths by gun in the U.S. combined. Reason enough for a ban.

Excellent and informative post.

#62 Posted by MrPraline (21331 posts) -
Rofl "gun control".
#63 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

Stolen from legal gun owners homes.

tenaka2

Now, maybe if you idiots pursued legislation mandating people own safes, we'd get somewhere. Instead you want to ban "assault weapons".

#64 Posted by Audacitron (968 posts) -

For some reason, I can't help but think that if control of handguns is increased, then the criminals that normally use them will continue to use them, and the other people that may commit a violent crime may use other weapons, like a shotgun, a rifle, a pen, a pencil, their fists... etc. Perhaps I am completely mistaken.

The__Kraken

 

well yeah.  Although I'd be a lot happier being robbed by that guy with the pencil, than being robbed at gunpoint.

 

It stands to reason that if you reduce the amount of criminals that have access to firearms, you will reduce the amount of deaths incurred in violent crimes.

 

I've mentioned this a bunch of times. The ban being pushed is actually a closet handgun ban. Look at the organizations pushing it. The Brady Campaign used to be called the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH). They realized that banning handguns was becoming increasingly unpopular so the invented the term assault weapon. Its so broad that they can make it include handguns as well. 

Its easier for  them to garner support when they intentionally try to confuse people into thinking they are banning fully  automatic weapons.

photo.jpg

 

They are hoping the average person can't tell the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle. Most people who are for the AWB believe they are banning fully automatic firearms.

UnknownSniper65

 

Maybe you should email them and tell them what they should call it then.

 

If people are more in favour of banning automatic weapons than 'assault weapons', maybe they should just call it the 'automatic weapon ban'.

 

I really don't get people raising this as if it were a serious objection.  It's semantics.  They could call it anything, ultimately all that matters is the specifics of what will be allowed and what will not.  Which will get watered down by NRA lobbying to the point where it has minimal effect, and then the NRA will turn around and be all  'see, it didn't work'

#65 Posted by Wasdie (50551 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Stolen from legal gun owners homes.

airshocker

Now, maybe if you idiots pursued legislation mandating people own safes, we'd get somewhere. Instead you want to ban "assault weapons".

How the hell could enforce that? You would have to have manditory gun registration so the police knows who have the guns and then have periodic checkups to see if they are following the laws. They would have to be totally random too.

The whole thing makes me uncomfortable. We have the 4th amendment for a reason. A person shouldn't have to give up one of their rights so they can practice another.

#66 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

How the hell could enforce that? You would have to have manditory gun registration so the police knows who have the guns and then have periodic checkups to see if they are following the laws. They would have to be totally random too.

The whole thing makes me uncomfortable. We have the 4th amendment for a reason. A person shouldn't have to give up one of their rights so they can practice another.

Wasdie

I don't know, but it's an infinitely better solution than banning "assault weapons".

#67 Posted by Wasdie (50551 posts) -

 

Maybe you should email them and tell them what they should call it then.

 

If people are more in favour of banning automatic weapons than 'assault weapons', maybe they should just call it the 'automatic weapon ban'.

 

I really don't get people raising this as if it were a serious objection.  It's semantics.  They could call it anything, ultimately all that matters is the specifics of what will be allowed and what will not.  Which will get watered down by NRA lobbying to the point where it has minimal effect, and then the NRA will turn around and be all  'see, it didn't work'

Audacitron

Assault weapons bans in California had no real impact on overall gun crimes and they won't have much of an impact in NY if the trend continues.

If you follow the trends set by the Brady Gun Campaign when they rate states based on how much gun control they have to how much gun crime the state has, you find absolutely no linear correlation. More gun control laws do nothing ot reduce gun crime in the state. It's all over the board.

#68 Posted by Wasdie (50551 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

How the hell could enforce that? You would have to have manditory gun registration so the police knows who have the guns and then have periodic checkups to see if they are following the laws. They would have to be totally random too.

The whole thing makes me uncomfortable. We have the 4th amendment for a reason. A person shouldn't have to give up one of their rights so they can practice another.

airshocker

I don't know, but it's an infinitely better solution than banning "assault weapons".

No it's not. They are both equally as bad. I'm not for the banning of "assault weapons" either but at least I'm not going to turn around and propose something that is the same if not worse.

The assault weapon ban isn't happening, nor is the restrictions on magazine sizes. At the most we'll see more background checks and harsher punishments for straw purchasing. Those aren't necessarily a bad thing. You're not supposed to own a gun if you have committed a crime and felons have a drastically higher chance of committing a gun crime. So it's logical to put up as many blocks as you can, that are reasonable and enforceable, to try to reduce the amount of legally bought guns ending up in hands of people who cannot legally own them or operate them.

So far only bits and peices of the legislation propsed actually address that.

#69 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

No it's not. They are both equally as bad. I'm not for the banning of "assault weapons" either but at least I'm not going to turn around and propose something that is the same if not worse.

The assault weapon ban isn't happening, nor is the restrictions on magazine sizes. At the most we'll see more background checks and harsher punishments for straw purchasing. Those aren't necessarily a bad thing. You're not supposed to own a gun if you have committed a crime and felons have a drastically higher chance of committing a gun crime. So it's logical to put up as many blocks as you can, that are reasonable and enforceable, to try to reduce the amount of legally bought guns ending up in hands of people who cannot legally own them or operate them.

So far only bits and peices of the legislation propsed actually address that.

Wasdie

Yes, it is.

#70 Posted by Wasdie (50551 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

No it's not. They are both equally as bad. I'm not for the banning of "assault weapons" either but at least I'm not going to turn around and propose something that is the same if not worse.

The assault weapon ban isn't happening, nor is the restrictions on magazine sizes. At the most we'll see more background checks and harsher punishments for straw purchasing. Those aren't necessarily a bad thing. You're not supposed to own a gun if you have committed a crime and felons have a drastically higher chance of committing a gun crime. So it's logical to put up as many blocks as you can, that are reasonable and enforceable, to try to reduce the amount of legally bought guns ending up in hands of people who cannot legally own them or operate them.

So far only bits and pieces of the legislation proposed actually address that.

airshocker

Yes, it is.

So basically you're fine with breaking the 4th amendment in order to keep the 2nd amendment? That's the only possible way that you could somehow enforce such a law. People would have to willing give up their 4th amendment rights in order to keep their 2nd amendment rights or vise versa. 

That's just dumb.

#71 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

So basically you're fine with breaking the 4th amendment in order to keep the 2nd amendment? That's the only possible way that you could somehow enforce such a law. People would have to willing give up their 4th amendment rights in order to keep their 2nd amendment rights or vise versa. 

That's just dumb.

Wasdie

IIRC, I didn't respond to the rest of your post. I don't think it's wrong to mandate that someone has to have some type of means of protecting their firearms against criminal misuse. Whether it be a locked gun cabinet, a locked room, or a safe, it doesn't really matter to me. I'm not suggesting someone have the capabilities of Fort Knox in order to be able to own a firearm.

As for the rest of your drivel, I really don't think a house to house search is necessary, nor would I ever condone something that goes against the 4th amendment. So before you make a post saying what I support, maybe you should find out exactly what that is instead of going off half-cocked.

California makes the gun-owner liable if the firearm was stolen and it wasn't kept in a safe, or locked cabinet. It's not a hard thing to implement, nor is it unreasonable. That's why it's a better option than banning assault weapons. And I think a more effective way of curbing gun violence.

#72 Posted by Audacitron (968 posts) -

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

 

Maybe you should email them and tell them what they should call it then.

 

If people are more in favour of banning automatic weapons than 'assault weapons', maybe they should just call it the 'automatic weapon ban'.

 

I really don't get people raising this as if it were a serious objection.  It's semantics.  They could call it anything, ultimately all that matters is the specifics of what will be allowed and what will not.  Which will get watered down by NRA lobbying to the point where it has minimal effect, and then the NRA will turn around and be all  'see, it didn't work'

Wasdie

Assault weapons bans in California had no real impact on overall gun crimes and they won't have much of an impact in NYC if the trend continues.

If you follow the trends set by the Brady Gun Campaign when they rate states based on how much gun control they have to how much gun crime the state has, you find absolutely no linear correlation. More gun control laws do nothing ot reduce gun crime in the state. It's all over the board.

That's because there are 50 states.  If one state brings in a ban, it's not such a big deal to drive across the border.  The significant effect isn't going to happen until it's enacted on a federal level.

   

#73 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
3D printing makes the very idea of "gun control" laughable.
#74 Posted by Audacitron (968 posts) -

3D printing makes the very idea of "gun control" laughable.Zeviander

 

on the contrary, that's an emerging technology that will require its own legislation.

#75 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

on the contrary, that's an emerging technology that will require its own legislation.

Audacitron

And you'll never stop it.

#76 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

on the contrary, that's an emerging technology that will require its own legislation.

airshocker

And you'll never stop it.

And that's a pretty scary thought.
#77 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

And that's a pretty scary thought. chrisrooR

Could be. Could also turn out great. We'll have to see.

#78 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]And that's a pretty scary thought. airshocker

Could be. Could also turn out great. We'll have to see.

The thought of criminal organizations printing weaponry is scary.
#79 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

The thought of criminal organizations printing weaponry is scary. chrisrooR

The thought of free people, of law-abiding citizens printing their own weapons sounds great.

#80 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]The thought of criminal organizations printing weaponry is scary. airshocker

The thought of free people, of law-abiding citizens printing their own weapons sounds great.

With one comes the other. I'm willing to sacrifice the ability to print my own weapons if it means criminal organizations are unable to. But hey, that's just me. I've never owned a gun, and have never seen the point, so culturally I think we're approaching it from very different places. I wouldn't feel comfortable living in a place where that kind of access to guns exists, but I understand the rationale behind people who do and want a gun for protection. I also believe there's a greatly exaggerated sense of security that comes with owning one, especially in areas where the violent crime rate is already low.
#81 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

With one comes the other. I'm willing to sacrifice the ability to print my own weapons if it means criminal organizations are unable to. But hey, that's just me. I've never owned a gun, and have never seen the point, so culturally I think we're approaching it from very different places. I wouldn't feel comfortable living in a place where that kind of access to guns exists, but I understand the rationale behind people who do and want a gun for protection. I also believe there's a greatly exaggerated sense of security that comes with owning one, especially in areas where the violent crime rate is already low. chrisrooR

There's no way that can happen, though. The government can't stop piracy. How the heck would it stop weapon blueprints being shared over the internet?

#82 Posted by thebest31406 (3548 posts) -
But but it's so much easier to ban guns then fix the socio-economic and mental health issues that leads to their missuse! :(General_X
This right here.
#83 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]With one comes the other. I'm willing to sacrifice the ability to print my own weapons if it means criminal organizations are unable to. But hey, that's just me. I've never owned a gun, and have never seen the point, so culturally I think we're approaching it from very different places. I wouldn't feel comfortable living in a place where that kind of access to guns exists, but I understand the rationale behind people who do and want a gun for protection. I also believe there's a greatly exaggerated sense of security that comes with owning one, especially in areas where the violent crime rate is already low. airshocker

There's no way that can happen, though. The government can't stop piracy. How the heck would it stop weapon blueprints being shared over the internet?

I'm not sure, but the alternative (letting everyone have free-reign over guns and their assmebly) is a much scarier thought to me.
#84 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

I'm not sure, but the alternative (letting everyone have free-reign over guns and their assmebly) is a much scarier thought to me. chrisrooR

Those who own 3D printers already do.

#85 Posted by Ingenemployee (2307 posts) -

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]With one comes the other. I'm willing to sacrifice the ability to print my own weapons if it means criminal organizations are unable to. But hey, that's just me. I've never owned a gun, and have never seen the point, so culturally I think we're approaching it from very different places. I wouldn't feel comfortable living in a place where that kind of access to guns exists, but I understand the rationale behind people who do and want a gun for protection. I also believe there's a greatly exaggerated sense of security that comes with owning one, especially in areas where the violent crime rate is already low. chrisrooR

There's no way that can happen, though. The government can't stop piracy. How the heck would it stop weapon blueprints being shared over the internet?

I'm not sure, but the alternative (letting everyone have free-reign over guns and their assmebly) is a much scarier thought to me.

Guns are not hard to make. You can find every thing you need to make one at a hardware store.

#86 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

There's no way that can happen, though. The government can't stop piracy. How the heck would it stop weapon blueprints being shared over the internet?

Ingenemployee

I'm not sure, but the alternative (letting everyone have free-reign over guns and their assmebly) is a much scarier thought to me.

Guns are not hard to make. You can find every thing you need to make one at a hardware store.

Still no match for a few computations and printing one off. Considering that you might only need a couple different printing materials to make it, and it's entirely effortless for the person behind the computer.
#87 Posted by unrealtron (3148 posts) -
I agree.
#88 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
on the contrary, that's an emerging technology that will require its own legislation.Audacitron
:lol: Legislating what people use their printer for. :lol:
The thought of criminal organizations printing weaponry is scary. chrisrooR
They wouldn't have to with such easy access to black market firearms. It's the law abiding citizenry being freely able to access their weapons without Big Brother breathing down their neck that is a positive thought.
#89 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -
[QUOTE="Audacitron"]on the contrary, that's an emerging technology that will require its own legislation.Zeviander
:lol: Legislating what people use their printer for. :lol:
The thought of criminal organizations printing weaponry is scary. chrisrooR
They wouldn't have to with such easy access to black market firearms. It's the law abiding citizenry being freely able to access their weapons without Big Brother breathing down their neck that is a positive thought.

Right, but that wasn't my point at all. Accessibility to black market firearms is there, but it's much riskier as weapons can be confiscated by police in transportation. Transporting the printable materials to a location and mass producing firearms from many different points is far less risky. It also has the potential to grossly inflate the overall circulation of firearms in domestic markets.
#90 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]Right, but that wasn't my point at all. Accessibility to black market firearms is there, but it's much riskier as weapons can be confiscated by police in transportation. Transporting the printable materials to a location and mass producing firearms from many different points is far less risky. It also has the potential to grossly inflate the overall circulation of firearms in domestic markets.

Not seeing the issue with responsible, law abiding citizens owning or printing firearms.
#91 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="chrisrooR"]Right, but that wasn't my point at all. Accessibility to black market firearms is there, but it's much riskier as weapons can be confiscated by police in transportation. Transporting the printable materials to a location and mass producing firearms from many different points is far less risky. It also has the potential to grossly inflate the overall circulation of firearms in domestic markets.

Not seeing the issue with responsible, law abiding citizens owning or printing firearms.

That's not the issue he has, tho
#92 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="chrisrooR"]Right, but that wasn't my point at all. Accessibility to black market firearms is there, but it's much riskier as weapons can be confiscated by police in transportation. Transporting the printable materials to a location and mass producing firearms from many different points is far less risky. It also has the potential to grossly inflate the overall circulation of firearms in domestic markets.

Not seeing the issue with responsible, law abiding citizens owning or printing firearms.

That's not the issue he has, tho

^^ exactly. I don't worry about responsible, law abiding citizens. I worry about at what cost this kind of freedom has, and the proliferation of arms amongst criminal organizations. Black markets exist, but this has the potential to make the problem much, much worse.
#93 Posted by Audacitron (968 posts) -

 

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

The thought of free people, of law-abiding citizens printing their own weapons sounds great.

airshocker

 

as does the thought of said gun enthusiasts injuring themselves with their exploding self-manufactured guns.

 

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]on the contrary, that's an emerging technology that will require its own legislation.Zeviander
:lol: Legislating what people use their printer for. :lol:

 

just wait.  The people printing out their own guns and encouraging others to do likewise are going to ruin it for everyone.

 

It's possible to make functional guns that don't look like guns and that can pass undetected through metal detectors.   That's only going to get easier.  Expect intrusive body scanners and cavity searches to become a lot more commonplace. 

 

#94 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

as does the thought of said gun enthusiasts injuring themselves with their exploding self-manufactured guns.

Audacitron

None of the 3D printed parts have exploded.

You should feel like a pretty sh*tty human being for enjoying the idea of somebody hurting themselves.

#95 Posted by Audacitron (968 posts) -

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

as does the thought of said gun enthusiasts injuring themselves with their exploding self-manufactured guns.

airshocker

None of the 3D printed parts have exploded.

You should feel like a pretty sh*tty human being for enjoying the idea of somebody hurting themselves.

 

right, I should be ashamed.  The internet is full of people laughing at videos of people hurting themselves. 

#96 Posted by airshocker (30841 posts) -

right, I should be ashamed.  The internet is full of people laughing at videos of people hurting themselves. 

Audacitron

Funny how that isn't what you said.

#97 Posted by Audacitron (968 posts) -

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

right, I should be ashamed.  The internet is full of people laughing at videos of people hurting themselves. 

airshocker

Funny how that isn't what you said.

 

are you trying to make a point or are you just being tedious

#98 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4499 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

The majority of guns used to kill people are legally owned.

airshocker

I made a distinction. When you learn to read let me know.

I read between the lines ;)

#99 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14311 posts) -
education is keydave123321
Definitely this.
#100 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

I love guns!

airshocker

 

Its difficult to take you seriously on this issue as you spend your time 'Pimping you ride' gun style and posting pics of your gun mods online.