Gun politics thread

Still waiting for you to post your counterproofs.
I don't think I've written much in support of current US gun control laws, my point is that they need to be improved. That is usually countered with "they can't ever work because they don't work today, so let's not even try", obviously packed into different language. But rule number one is never doubted.
 
I don't think I've written much in support of current US gun control laws, my point is that they need to be improved. That is usually countered with "they can't ever work because they don't work today, so let's not even try", obviously packed into different language. But rule number one is never doubted.

No, they're countered with 'we have already tried that and it didn't work then, here's why - please note circumstances have not changed, so why should we expect it to work in future?' It's not just a blithe assurance it won't work, but posting proof. Again, if we have proof something does not work and nothing has changed, why should we try it again?

Perhaps we should try Prohibition again - it didn't work the first time and nothing has changed, but hey! maybe the second time will be the charm, eh?
 
No, they're countered with 'we have already tried that and it didn't work then, here's why - please note circumstances have not changed, so why should we expect it to work in future?' It's not just a blithe assurance it won't work, but posting proof. Again, if we have proof something does not work and nothing has changed, why should we try it again?
Except that at least I* am not saying that rules that haven't worked should be tried again. For starters, any ban that isn't enforced nationwide is a non-starter. But it'd be political suicide to suggest, let alone introduce, such a bill, so it won't happen and we're back at this:

Look, we've collectively decided, as a country, that the occasional massacre is okay with us. It's the price we're willing to pay for our precious Second Amendment freedoms. We're content to forfeit the lives of a few dozen schoolkids a year as long as we get to keep our guns. The people have spoken, in a cheering civics-class example of democracy in action.

impossible to accept, very difficult to tolerate, but simply true
* just to reassure you that I don't believe you're talking to nobody but me... :rolleyes:
 
Except that at least I* am not saying that rules that haven't worked should be tried again. For starters, any ban that isn't enforced nationwide is a non-starter. But it'd be political suicide to suggest, let alone introduce, such a bill, so it won't happen and we're back at this:


* just to reassure you that I don't believe you're talking to nobody but me... :rolleyes:

Even if we implemented a nationwide ban, it still wouldn't work. We have proof of that in California, where State Senator Yee - a major figure behind that state's gun control laws - was just indicted for illegally smuggling weapons into the United States on a huge industrial scale. Please note that he wasn't smuggling it in from another state - he was directly importing weapons from China illegally. This is far from the only such operation in that state, either.

Then we have our southern border. Often unpoliced, we can't keep people from walking across in many places, let alone smaller items like weapons or drugs. Mexican *military* weapons are turning up at crime scenes in the southern and western US now. To say nothing of the guns our government ran to the cartels there to 'prove' that the US was the source of all their arms in Mexico - yeah, those weapons are coming back to the US and showing up here at crime scenes too. The direction of weapons flow is not the way they thought it was.

Until and unless we actually seal our borders and start actually running real security checks on cargo entering the country, even a total nationwide ban is highly unlikely to work. Witness how much of a fail the "Assault Weapon Ban" was, and that *was* enforced nationally.
 
I don't think I've written much in support of current US gun control laws, my point is that they need to be improved. That is usually countered with "they can't ever work because they don't work today, so let's not even try", obviously packed into different language. But rule number one is never doubted.

I'm gonna have to go an side with Spectre here, we have yet to see a suggestion that has not been tried and failed.

- - - Updated - - -

Until and unless we actually seal our borders and start actually running real security checks on cargo entering the country, even a total nationwide ban is highly unlikely to work. Witness how much of a fail the "Assault Weapon Ban" was, and that *was* enforced nationally.
Was going to mention that, also the ban on full autos in the 30's.
 
Even if we implemented a nationwide ban, it still wouldn't work.
Dingdingding! Rule number one! It cannot, will not, EVER work, right? :lol:

- - - Updated - - -

I'm gonna have to go an side with Spectre here, we have yet to see a suggestion that has not been tried and failed.
I can't be bothered to go back to that post of mine where, in response to LeVeL, I made a few suggestions; you'll have to look it up yourself. But somehow, I doubt that each and every one of them has once been enforced nationwide, simultaneously.
 
Dingdingding! Rule number one! It cannot, will not, EVER work, right? :lol:
I think we all agree that an all-out ban could never work in the US.


I can't be bothered to go back to that post of mine where, in response to LeVeL, I made a few suggestions; you'll have to look it up yourself. But somehow, I doubt that each and every one of them has once been enforced nationwide, simultaneously.
legislation that makes people realise, even those who are a bit daft, that any handgun is a powerful weapon and forces them to act accordingly

Safe storage, limitations on concealed carrying, restrictions on the kind of ammunition that you may make, own and/or trade, buybacks, that sort of thing: Allow semi-automatic rifles, but force the owners to store them at a shooting range. Forbid home storage in anything less than a locked strongbox - tough luck of your new bedside table looks a bit weird due to that. Penalise people for wielding their guns in public for no reason. Ban all marketing of guns, especially to children. Introduce mandatory and recurring proficiency tests, above and beyond those required for driving. Track all guns from the point of manufacture/importation to the point of destruction/deactivation: no sale may go unrecorded and no loss or theft unreported; if you fail to record/report it, you're punished. Fix the price of every variety of gun and offer buybacks at those prices, i.e. remove the profit motive - working firearms are not investments, they're weapons. Stipulate that every sentence for a crime must be increased if a gun was used. Make all these laws on the federal level so that no state can become a "Mecca" for gun buyers.

Enforcement: give the relevant authorities the actual power to enforce these laws. Otherwise the more-guns-are-better crowd will just find reasons to scream "It can't work!"

Education: Stop putting the idea that failures and weaknesses are inexcusable into people's heads. Stop the authoritarian discipline-is-all-you-need nonsense. And most importantly: prosecute every last case of violence against children - if someone's idea of raising children is smacking them into submission, the kids learn that violence is right. That never ends well.

Healthcare and social: People who don't face the loss of their livelihood, health insurance and pension if they lose (or even quit) a job are much less likely to despair or end up as outcasts. So scrap the employer-centric model that used to work in a paternalistic world and introduce state-backed systems that work in this eat-or-be-eaten world.

Then, attitude. You can't regulate it, but it can still change. End the glorification of violence; war isn't awesome, it sucks. Killing people doesn't rock, it blows, even if they are "bad guys". If a deadly attack is no longer seen as a profound statement of power, but as tremendously cruel, unwanted and possibly sick, less people will try to make such statements. As long as "peacenik", "pussy" and the like define opinions on opponents of violence, the problems with violent crime will prove very hard to fight - why not make it easier?
 
Dingdingding! Rule number one! It cannot, will not, EVER work, right? :lol:

No, it could work. Thing is, it won't work with conditions the way they are currently. There are preconditions that would have to be met before it would have a chance of working - securing the borders, real commerce security checks - and believe it or not, those preconditions are even less likely to be met first. Otherwise, it's like putting a screen door on the top of a submarine then submerging. Stupid and easy to predict failure.

I can't be bothered to go back to that post of mine where, in response to LeVeL, I made a few suggestions; you'll have to look it up yourself. But somehow, I doubt that each and every one of them has once been enforced nationwide, simultaneously.

IIRC, most of your suggestions had been tried nationally or in places where the fact that it wasn't national didn't matter at all (Hawaii - it's an island, nothing can sneak in across state lines at least in theory). All had been failures to one or another degree. I'll just take apart your first paragraph as an example.

Safe Storage is mandated in over half the states - nationalization would not affect this. Children are still getting access to weapons anyway in Safe Storage states. Amusingly for your contention, reasonable safe storage laws are not only not opposed but promoted by gun rights advocates.

Limitations on concealed carry - um... in almost every state but four of them, concealed carry requires a permit or is either specifically or de facto banned. Again, nationalization would not make a difference. Again, severely restricting concealed carry has not worked to reduce gun crime.

Ammo restrictions: Already a Federal law. Already enforced nationally. Already a failure because there is no practical way to govern an individual's ammo manufacture.

Gun marketing: Guns are not marketed to children as that is actually already illegal in the US IIRC. No major media outlet will accept ads for guns already. The only marketing of guns in mass media is done by (surprise) the mass media whilst they glorify violence - not the gun manufacturers.

Wielding guns in public for no reason: Already illegal in every single state as 'brandishing.' In open carry states, you may *carry* your weapon openly in a non-threatening manner - slung or holstered. You may not actually wield it in public for no reason. Carries jail time in every state. has done nothing to prevent violence.

Stipulate that every sentence for a crime must be increased if a gun was used: Already Federal law. Already enforced. Already a failure, doesn't deter anything.

Fix the price of every variety of gun and offer buybacks at those prices, i.e. remove the profit motive - working firearms are not investments, they're weapons: Current investment grade guns basically become worthless if you ever fire them. Also, investment guns are almost never used in crimes, are often stored in bank vaults. Even the most successful buybacks with people paying retail for weapons turned in (again, Hawaii) have not had any effect on gun crimes.

Track all guns from the point of manufacture/importation to the point of destruction/deactivation: no sale may go unrecorded and no loss or theft unreported; if you fail to record/report it, you're punished: Already law in several states, including Hawaii. In the case of Hawaii (again, a case where nationalization does not matter) it's been an abject failure there as well. No effect on crime or unregistered firearms appearing at crime scenes.
 
Last edited:
No, it could work.
Well, that's a first from you.

Thing is, it won't work with conditions the way they are currently.
If I'd ever got beyond explaining that gun control is not necessarily the wicked, evil communistofacist plot that people make it out to be, I might have addressed that. Bit late now.

There are preconditions that would have to be met before it would have a chance of working - securing the borders, real commerce security checks
...less income inequality, better opportunities for the poor... yeah, I can see why that won't get done.

and believe it or not, those preconditions are even less likely to be met first.
So in other words, gun control cannot work until a set of unrealistic preconditions is met.

Sounds like rule number one to me. Funnily enough, Germany hardly (if at all) secures its borders with its ten neighbouring countries and we've got a much smaller problem with firearms than you in the US do.

Otherwise, it's like putting a screen door on the top of a submarine then submerging. Stupid and easy to predict failure.
Yup, that's just as stupid as putting a gun in your pocket and expecting it to give you security. :yes:

IIRC, most of your suggestions had been tried nationally or in places where the fact that it wasn't national didn't matter at all (Hawaii - it's an island, nothing can sneak in across state lines at least in theory). All had been failures.
I won't take your word for it.
 
we've got a much smaller problem with firearms than you in the US do.
We've got a totally different relationship to guns and gun violence on a cultural level. For reasons I don't understand, in the US gun violence and using weapons in a conflict is seen as normal - or at least, is much more accepted than in Europe.
You will never convince them to accept stricter gun control. It's more likely to get the ADAC to accept a blanket speed limit...
 
Gun politics thread

...less income inequality, better opportunities for the poor... yeah, I can see why that won't get done.

Neither of which have anything to do with gun control. As a strictly practical matter, a successful national ban on guns would *require* than you block off the major sources of firearms coming into the country for criminals. If you cannot do that, the ban is unenforceable and laughable at best.

So in other words, gun control cannot work until a set of unrealistic preconditions is met.

Not if your objective is to actually reduce crime instead of affecting law-abiding citizens. Otherwise, it would be like banning alcohol while allowing free passage of alcohol from Mexico and only minorly encumbered passage of alcohol from Canada... oh, wait, how did that work again?

Sounds like rule number one to me. Funnily enough, Germany hardly (if at all) secures its borders with its ten neighbouring countries and we've got a much smaller problem with firearms than you in the US do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Germany

Germany has a total of 2,389 km (1,484 mi) of coastline, and borders totaling 3,621 km (2,250 mi)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_United_States

Border with Canada: 8,893 km (5,526 mi)
Border with Mexico: 3,327 km (2,067 mi)

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/shorelength.html

NOAA's official value for the total length of the U.S. shoreline is 95,471 miles
(Bold is in original source.)

How nice for you that you can easily secure your tiny little country's borders. There's a bit of a difference of scale, though - tends to make keeping smugglers out a bit more difficult and makes it easy for them to get in without being spotted by anyone, whereas IIRC Germany doesn't exactly have huge stretches of easily passable border where there's nobody in visual range - and more importantly, no local police jurisdictions to cover it.

Yup, that's just as stupid as putting a gun in your pocket and expecting it to give you security. :yes:

Except I can prove that putting a pistol in my pocket can provide security. See the police and press reports from legal pistol carriers successfully defending themselves - there's a lot of them. In fact, I am still here (unfortunately for you) because I was able to slip a pistol in my pocket and go find out why that guy was poking around my car in the parking lot.

I won't take your word for it.

I don't expect you to, that's why I provide cites when I have time.
 
Last edited:
Funnily enough, Germany hardly (if at all) secures its borders with its ten neighbouring countries and we've got a much smaller problem with firearms than you in the US do.
Australia is an island with easily secured borders and basically a blanket gun ban. Feel free to go upthread to learn how their criminal elements are now producing guns locally. What do you propose next? Ban steel and tools?
Yup, that's just as stupid as putting a gun in your pocket and expecting it to give you security. :yes:
I'm not sure why you (and some other antis) don't get the very simple idea of a level playing field, not to give you absolute security. After all you wouldn't think that you would necessarily win a car race if you are driving a fast car but you are most assuredly not going to be winning one if you are on foot. You get a greater chance with a weapon than without and that's really all there is to it.
 
So in other words, gun control cannot work until a set of unrealistic preconditions is met.
Preconditions such as everyone abiding by the laws? Unfortunately, yes, unrealistic. Reminds me of something I read about "rape culture" today and how apparently we just need to tell men that rape is bad... Right, because that will stop rapists. Same with other kinds of violence.


Yup, that's just as stupid as putting a gun in your pocket and expecting it to give you security. :yes:
A gun does not magically make you invincible; no one believes that it does. However, when facing an armed intruder, I will gladly take my chances using a gun than a cellphone. A gun gives you a fighting chance, whereas without one you are defenseless (see massacres in gun-free zones as an example).
 
We've got a totally different relationship to guns and gun violence on a cultural level. For reasons I don't understand, in the US gun violence and using weapons in a conflict is seen as normal - or at least, is much more accepted than in Europe.
You will never convince them to accept stricter gun control. It's more likely to get the ADAC to accept a blanket speed limit...
I'm starting to think that it's like discussing human rights with a Saudi executioner.

How nice for you that you can easily secure your tiny little country's borders.
Yeah... my point was that we don't secure our borders. You can drive from Lapland to Lisbon without getting checked once; go calculate that shoreline if you want to compare it to that of the US. There are plenty of ways to bring illegal guns into this country and our version of CBP is usually busy fighting human trafficking (or drugs trafficking), but gun control still works.

And "tiny little country"? I never knew you had that much of a complex. :lol:

I am still here (unfortunately for you)
So basically, you accuse me of wishing you were dead. You've crossed a line there.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure why you (and some other antis) don't get the very simple idea of a level playing field,
Oh, I do understand that idea. It's just that I also understand that criminals understand it, too - if they have to expect that people have guns for "self-defence", they will carry them, too.

not to give you absolute security.
Yeah... that's a huge problem with the anti-gun control crowd. Unless a set of laws ends all gun crime, it "Does Not Work". :rolleyes: I've been trying to argue against that, sadly without success.

- - - Updated - - -

Preconditions such as everyone abiding by the laws? Unfortunately, yes, unrealistic. Reminds me of something I read about "rape culture" today and how apparently we just need to tell men that rape is bad... Right, because that will stop rapists. Same with other kinds of violence.
So laws against rape (your example) are useless because rapists don't abide by them? Do I actually have to explain how insane that logic is?

A gun gives you a fighting chance, whereas without one you are defenseless
Yup, it sure gives the burglar a fighting chance. And the rapist and the car thief and the snatcher.

(see massacres in gun-free zones as an example).
which are usually committed with the very kind of gun that I and many others want to see banned and confiscated
 
Yeah... my point was that we don't secure our borders. You can drive from Lapland to Lisbon without getting checked once; go calculate that shoreline if you want to compare it to that of the US. There are plenty of ways to bring illegal guns into this country and our version of CBP is usually busy fighting human trafficking (or drugs trafficking), but gun control still works.

Actually, you do. But instead of organized border patrols, Germany generally relies on local citizen reporting of suspicious activity and your local police departments for smuggling/border security enforcement. (This is per US Customs and Border Patrol - they have released tomes comparing the US' issues vs the rest of the world.) Most of Germany's borders where it's possible to drive a truck across are visible to citizens. There's rarely a case where the police are more than 20 minutes away.

Here, that's not even a possibility. There are literally thousands of miles of border that you can drive a truck across without being stopped that are hours away from the local constabulary - if there was even someone there to see it.

So basically, you accuse me of wishing you were dead. You've crossed a line there.

Ah, reading things in where there isn't anything. How classic.

No, I was saying it was unfortunate for you and your arguments that I am still here - because I keep presenting facts and figures and debunking where appropriate (complete with citations!), and you keep appealing to emotion without benefit of statistical backup.


Oh, I do understand that idea. It's just that I also understand that criminals understand it, too - if they have to expect that people have guns for "self-defence", they will carry them, too.

Criminals are *already* carrying, even in places where law abiding citizens are not allowed to! If you ban all guns, they will *continue to carry guns.* You wish to disarm their prey instead?

Yeah... that's a huge problem with the anti-gun control crowd. Unless a set of laws ends all gun crime, it "Does Not Work". :rolleyes: I've been trying to argue against that, sadly without success.

It's not even that. It's "did it have *any* discernable effect on gun crime?" Not "did it end it all?" Not "did it at least get rid of most of it?" Nope, because the measures you propose when tried have never had *any* statistically significant effect. Read that again, ANY.

We're not demanding people show proof that it will totally end gun crime. We're not demanding proof that it will reduce gun crime in a big way. We're just demanding proof that it will do *anything at all* to the gun crime rates.


Yup, it sure gives the burglar a fighting chance. And the rapist and the car thief and the snatcher.

Except it is already illegal for them to possess the gun, yet they do anyway. The least you can do is level the playing field for the good guys.

which are usually committed with the very kind of gun that I and many others want to see banned and confiscated

So you are saying you want handguns banned and confiscated? Because they are usually committed with those, not rifles!
 
I'm starting to think that it's like discussing human rights with a Saudi executioner.
That's a nice comparison, thanks...


And "tiny little country"? I never knew you had that much of a complex. :lol:
Complex? I think it's just geography: the US is very nearly as big as all of Europe.


Oh, I do understand that idea. It's just that I also understand that criminals understand it, too - if they have to expect that people have guns for "self-defence", they will carry them, too.
Do you honestly believe that telling criminals that civilians are not carrying firearms will make them go "well then, I guess I don't need one either - that would be unfair!"???? Because that worked well after post-Katrina confiscations, just as it does in gun-free zones. Criminals prey on the defenseless!


Yeah... that's a huge problem with the anti-gun control crowd. Unless a set of laws ends all gun crime, it "Does Not Work". :rolleyes: I've been trying to argue against that, sadly without success.
As Spectre mentioned, gun control measures that have been taken in the US have had no effect on criminal activity.


So laws against rape (your example) are useless because rapists don't abide by them? Do I actually have to explain how insane that logic is?
We have laws against murder too, what's your point? We also have laws that mandate stricter punishment for crimes committed with a firearm. The point of my rape example was that you can't just tell criminals not to break laws! What fantasy world do you live in where you can tell a rapist that rape is wrong and he won't rape? Can you also tell an armed gang-banger that murder is bad and he will go get a 9-5 job instead?


Yup, it sure gives the burglar a fighting chance. And the rapist and the car thief and the snatcher.
Ah, so hope for the best and prepare for the best. No wait, that's not how the saying goes...


which are usually committed with the very kind of gun that I and many others want to see banned and confiscated
Are you talking about assault weapons? I thought you did not want to ban those? That's besides the fact that they are used in a very small percentage of crime...
 
No, I was saying it was unfortunate for you and your arguments that I am still here - because I keep presenting facts and figures and debunking where appropriate (complete with citations!), and you keep appealing to emotion without benefit of statistical backup.
Since you believe that your being alive is unfortunate for me, there's no way we can have any kind of discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

The point of my rape example was that you can't just tell criminals not to break laws!
If you don't define an action as a crime, it isn't one. That's the first step towards prosecution and prevention and a lot more significant than just "tell(ing) criminals not to break laws".

What fantasy world do you live in where you can tell a rapist that rape is wrong and he won't rape?
So you believe that criminal law has no deterrent effect. In the real world, as opposed to your dystopian fantasy world, that effect is a cornerstone of the rule of law. If you don't realise that, there's no way we can have any kind of discussion.
 
Since you believe that your being alive is unfortunate for me, there's no way we can have any kind of discussion.
I think his comment went over your head... He was not saying that you wish him dead.


If you don't define an action as a crime, it isn't one. That's the first step towards prosecution and prevention and a lot more significant than just "tell(ing) criminals not to break laws".
And my comment went even further over your head. Come on now, I know you read my post, so stop ignoring the important bits and instead nitpicking at the details. Here:
We have laws against murder too, what's your point? We also have laws that mandate stricter punishment for crimes committed with a firearm. The point of my rape example was that you can't just tell criminals not to break laws! What fantasy world do you live in where you can tell a rapist that rape is wrong and he won't rape? Can you also tell an armed gang-banger that murder is bad and he will go get a 9-5 job instead?
Should be have laws against long penises or something?


So you believe that criminal law has no deterrent effect. In the real world, as opposed to your dystopian fantasy world, that effect is a cornerstone of the rule of law. If you don't realise that, there's no way we can have any kind of discussion.
You're painting me as an anarchist of some sort, which couldn't be any further from the truth. You're making it sound like I want to legalize rape and murder, while completely missing the point that EVEN THOUGH RAPE AND MURDER ARE ILLEGAL, CRIMINALS STILL RAPE AND MURDER! A piece of paper signed by a legislator cannot possible physically prevent someone from ignoring that law and committing a crime anyways. By the very definition of the terms, the law-abiding will abide by the laws and the criminals will not. Of course we should (and do) have laws against rape and murder so that we may punish those that commit them. However, it is naive and even dangerous to assume that because they are illegal they will never happen so we might as well go completely defenseless.
 
Oh, I do understand that idea. It's just that I also understand that criminals understand it, too - if they have to expect that people have guns for "self-defence", they will carry them, too.
Problem is that criminals tend to carry guns anyway, there are plenty of examples from countries with little to none private gun ownership, as an example there were guns carried by some of the people in the London riots.

Yeah... that's a huge problem with the anti-gun control crowd. Unless a set of laws ends all gun crime, it "Does Not Work". :rolleyes: I've been trying to argue against that, sadly without success.
See the problem is that all of the current propositions and all the ones that were made in this thread that focus ONLY on gun control have been shown to not have any kind of effect in this country.
So laws against rape (your example) are useless because rapists don't abide by them? Do I actually have to explain how insane that logic is?
By extension of that logic gun control would be akin to penis control, as someone who has a penis is capable of rape* we must regulate all the penises in the country regardless of their status.

*Granted women can rape too but it's much less common.

See problem is that laws are generally reactive and are designed to punish criminals but not actually prevent the behavior. Rape is a good example of that, it gives a set of guidelines as to what can be considered rape (i.e. statutory vs forced) and what kind of punishment should be handed down for it. However until you are accused of rape you don't have to worry about those laws.

Gun control laws are a very weird example of laws that affect law abiding citizens and do very little to stop criminals. One of the reasons is that a criminal does not generally commit a simple crime of illegal firearm possession but rather uses those as tools of the trade. At any point when a crime is committed with a gun there are already other laws in place to punish that behavior so why does a gun matter?
 
Last edited:
I don't know what the laws are where you live, but if I took out my private parts in public, there'd be a few questions... and a bathrobe, presumably. :lol:

Anyway, it's nice to see rule number one being repeated over and over again. If, for starters, any of you realised that everyone is born a law-abiding citizen and that dividing people into two groups is counter-productive, we might get somewhere.
 
Top