Gun politics thread

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,813
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.
Are you one of those people that blames dark clothing, video games, society, etc for an individual's actions? Are you going to make excuses for rapists too? The sooner you realize that some people are just cheating, lying, dishonorable scumbags, the sooner we will get somewhere in this debate. Crime has existed for as long as humans have populated the Earth and there is nothing you can do to change that; there will always be criminals who take advantage of others. When faced with an armed attacker in my home, I will certainly not concern myself with his social status or his background, but I guarantee you that he will be very much concerned about the shiny object at the end of the barrel that he will be staring into.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,744
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
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:
As long as it is not done for money it is 100% legal to walk around naked in NY. Falls under freedom of expression.

Anyway, it's nice to see rule number one being repeated over and over again.
I'm not sure if you are trolling at this point tbh... We have covered every single proposition you had in this thread, most are already a law and others have been tried and repealed (1994 AWB). So please show me/us where we are stubbornly following that rule #1 w/o providing any real life examples?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,813
If it were a real ban, all the assault weapons would have been confiscated.
You can't arbitrarily decide that something that is perfectly legal to own today will be made illegal and confiscated tomorrow. We are not living under communism, the government can't just steal your property. Not only that, but good luck confiscating rifles nation-wide: you go door-to-door first and let me know how that works out for you.


Be it as it may, doesn't seem to have made much of a difference and was eventually repealed.
It wasn't repealed - it expired. Some states, like MA, continued the ban indefinitely. Regardless, studies show that banning cosmetic features on rifles rarely used in crime was not at all effective (apparently this wasn't obvious back in 1994).
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,551
Location
near Cologne
You're painting me as an anarchist of some sort,
not exactly

which couldn't be any further from the truth.
I know.

I'm not putting you into a category. Perhaps you wish I did, perhaps you don't, but unlike those who declare me to be an "anti", I don't think your or anyone's attitude can be accurately described with one word.

You're making it sound like I want to legalize rape and murder,
Please don't be ridiculous and stop putting words in my mouth.

Are you one of those people that blames dark clothing, video games, society, etc for an individual's actions?
No, those words are usually said right after "it wasn't the gun that killed them".
__

I'm not sure if you are trolling at this point tbh...
not exactly

But what do I have to gain from researching even more if all I do is, at the end, still countered with what I call rule number one?

We have covered every single proposition you had in this thread, most are already a law and others have been tried and repealed (1994 AWB). So please show me/us where we are stubbornly following that rule #1 w/o providing any real life examples?
You and others follow the rule every time someone suggests gun control measures. Every time a suggestion is made, it's shot down because "it won't end all gun crime" - as if anyone said it would.

Registration? Cannot work and will lead to confiscation. *
Limitations? Cannot work because killers will just bring more of the smaller guns and/or magazines. **
Bans? Cannot work because criminals are criminals through and through and don't care about the ban. ***
Mandatory safe storage? Cannot work because that defeats the whole purpose of owning a gun. ****

* But the car analogy still stands, obviously, even though those have to be registered if you want to use them in public.
** No, a semi-automatic rifle has no greater destructive power than a handgun. They're just purrrdy, that's why people pay extra for them.
*** And don't start with supply and demand - we all know that decreasing the supply of a good raises its price, except for guns because those are different.
**** Don't you dare ask how exactly people expect to defend themselves once their own guns have been taken out of the cupboard and pointed at them! And I need my sporting rifle for self-defence, too.
 
Last edited:

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,551
Location
near Cologne
Anyway, perhaps one simple question can help:

Do you believe that gun crime in the USA is a problem that needs to be solved?
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,813
You and others follow the rule every time someone suggests gun control measures. Every time a suggestion is made, it's shot down because "it won't end all gun crime" - as if anyone said it would.
That's not why these suggestions are shut down. Try "it won't have the slightest effect on crime".


Registration? Cannot work and will lead to confiscation. *
* But the car analogy still stands, obviously, even though those have to be registered if you want to use them in public.

Registration HAS lead to confiscation, right here in the United States.


Limitations? Cannot work because killers will just bring more of the smaller guns and/or magazines. **
** No, a semi-automatic rifle has no greater destructive power than a handgun. They're just purrrdy, that's why people pay extra for them.
Looks like you've skipped all the posts about semi-automatic rifles, since you appear to know nothing about them. An AR15 is no more "destructive" than a snub-nose revolver at distances typical to crime scenes. At 100+ yards, yes, a rifle is more accurate; below 25 yards, it really makes no difference. Are you about to suggest that mass shooters have to reach out to several hundred yards? Never mind the fact that bolt-action rifles are often (maybe even usually) more powerful than semi-autos...


Bans? Cannot work because criminals are criminals through and through and don't care about the ban. ***
*** And don't start with supply and demand - we all know that decreasing the supply of a good raises its price, except for guns because those are different.
Ah, so you want law-abiding citizens to have to pay several times more for already expensive firearms? Are you also ignoring the fact that illegally-purchased firearms are usually cheaper than those bought legally?


Mandatory safe storage? Cannot work because that defeats the whole purpose of owning a gun. ****
**** Don't you dare ask how exactly people expect to defend themselves once their own guns have been taken out of the cupboard and pointed at them!
You are, as usual, taking things to the extreme. No one has suggested that you hide guns in your child's crib or in the cereal box. You have done zero research into home defense, haven't you?


And I need my sporting rifle for self-defence, too.
Once again, you seem to have missed every single discussion about sporting rifles being fantastic home-defense tools.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,813
The answer is "yes" but it has nothing to do with gun control. As I mentioned earlier, there are two types of events to be discussed here: rare media-hyped mass shootings and gang-related or even seemingly random shootings that make up the vast majority of gun homicides in the US. The latter is a socioeconomic issue that I will not pretend to know how to solve; my only ideas include ending the war on drugs, securing the border with Mexico, and keeping violent offenders behind bars instead of letting them out into society early. The former is also a bit tricky, as we get into mental health issues and the arguments that that entails; however, eliminating gun-free zones is an important step.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,551
Location
near Cologne
The answer is "yes" but it has nothing to do with gun control.
So you basically expect magic to happen. Fight gun crime, but don't do anything about the guns - that's like fighting fires without doing anything about the fuel.

eliminating gun-free zones is an important step.
Right. So "more guns in more places" is, in your opinion, an important step towards solving the problem of "too many people get shot". I suppose that eliminating speed limits is your idea for keeping people from getting run over?

my only ideas include ending the war on drugs
More guns + more drugs = safer environment? Is that why Mexico is so much safer than the US? :confused:

securing the border with Mexico
What do you suggest, apart from the walls, fences, patrols, ditches, cameras, drones, deserts, vigilantes etc. that already exist?

keeping violent offenders behind bars instead of letting them out into society early
The US already has an insanely high incarceration rate, so what is that going to improve?

You simply cannot claim that "gun control is proven not to work" and then suggest alternatives that keep failing day in, day out. None of your own suggestions is realistic and/or practical, yet you act as if one that can work, if done right, is heresy.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,726
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I see someone's been believing our agenda-driven mass media reports again.

So you basically expect magic to happen. Fight gun crime, but don't do anything about the guns - that's like fighting fires without doing anything about the fuel.
Other way around.

Let's say you magically pass a gun ban that even criminals abide by. Let's say that all the guns go away and no more are smuggled in. Let's further stipulate that magically no further gun crimes occur.

We will *still* kill each other with knives at a rate greater than any other first world country has ALL kinds of homicides. We will *still* kill each other with fists and feet more than any other country has all kinds of homicides. That's not even saying that people will shift from guns to something else - that's just using existing statistics and assuming the gun crimes are gone instead of translated into another category. What then? Knife control? Lock up fists and feet?

The problem isn't the guns, its the culture and the people. Banning guns is treating the symptom, not curing the disease - the underlying problem is still there.

Right. So "more guns in more places" is, in your opinion, an important step towards solving the problem of "too many people get shot". I suppose that eliminating speed limits is your idea for keeping people from getting run over?
You keep failing to make a distinction between legal guns in the hands of the law abiding and illegal guns in the hands of criminals. Let's reference already existing Federal laws, shall we?

It is illegal everywhere in the US for a felon to possess a firearm.
It is illegal everywhere in the US for a felon to carry a firearm.*
It is illegal everywhere in the US for a felon to even attempt to obtain a firearm.*
It is illegal everywhere in the US for a felon to possess or attempt to purchase ammunition.*
It is illegal everywhere in the US for someone under a restraining order for domestic violence or who has been convicted of domestic violence to possess, carry, or attempt to obtain a firearm.*
It is illegal everywhere in the US for someone who is under indictment (not even convicted, just indicted) for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to transport, purchase (or otherwise obtain), attempt to purchase (or otherwise obtain) or even ship to someone else a firearm or ammunition.*
It is illegal everywhere in the US for anyone who illegally uses controlled substances to possess or purchase a firearm or ammunition.* (18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(3) - and I've got a great example of how this is a failure if pressed.)

*Cites for starred items: http://www.williamslawonline.com/Press-Room/Top-10-Things-Know-About-Federal-Gun-Law.shtml

And yet we have felons roaming around ON VIDEO with guns in their waistbands, smoking a blunt and bragging about how they beat their girls and got convicted.

More guns + more drugs = safer environment? Is that why Mexico is so much safer than the US? :confused:
More *legally* held guns by law abiding citizens is statistically linked to a safer environment in the US.

Also, you apparently don't know that Mexico has a blanket civilian gun ban with very harsh penalties for getting caught. The good guys don't legally have guns there - which is part of why the cartels can take over towns with impunity. (The other part is that the cartels have raided Mexican military armories.)

It's gotten so bad in Mexico that formerly law-abiding citizens are now breaking the law there, forming militias and arming themselves as best they can so they can survive.

What do you suggest, apart from the walls, fences, patrols, ditches, cameras, drones, deserts, vigilantes etc. that already exist?
The walls, fences, patrols, cameras, drones, etc., are only within a few dozen miles of cities along the southern border. Most of the border doesn't have a fence or anything. Most of it looks like this:



This is shot from the Mexican side of the border, looking across to the US and Interstate 8 in California, east of San Diego. You see any barriers?

Here's how bad it is:


And in places where there is a fence, it's so poorly monitored that this is possible.


Please note that the only reason they found out about this was because the Jeep got stuck. The earlier case, the truck broke down - in both cases, the drug shipments got away. Weapons get into the US the same way, sometimes with the drugs.

You simply cannot claim that "gun control is proven not to work" and then suggest alternatives that keep failing day in, day out. None of your own suggestions is realistic and/or practical, yet you act as if one that can work, if done right, is heresy.
Actually, we have suggested things that are proven to work in the US - Level has concentrated on community programs and the like in his offerings (which, surprisingly, did work); I've mentioned Project Exile.
 
Last edited:

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,988
Location
Michigan USA
Re drug war and Mexico. The reason it is so violent down there is because the drug war is in full swing and there is nothing legal about the drugs or the guns.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,551
Location
near Cologne
Let's say you magically pass a gun ban that even criminals abide by. Let's say that all the guns go away and no more are smuggled in. Let's further stipulate that magically no further gun crimes occur.

We will *still* kill each other with knives at a rate greater than any other first world country has ALL kinds of homicides. We will *still* kill each other with fists and feet more than any other country has all kinds of homicides. That's not even saying that people will shift from guns to something else - that's just using existing statistics and assuming the gun crimes are gone. What then? Knife control? Lock up fists and feet?
Please remind me: What's the risk of being clubbed to death from dozens of feet or yards away? Compared to a semi-automatic rifle, how quickly can your average high-school dropout kill with just a knife?

As for knife control, I'm perfectly at ease with banning switchblades and the like for everyone who doesn't have a very good reason to own one.

The problem isn't the guns, its the culture and the people.
I agree on the problem, but your idea that laws change nothing is asinine. Laws ended slavery, laws ended segregation and laws can certainly help against gun violence.

You keep failing to make a distinction between legal guns in the hands of the law abiding and illegal guns in the hands of criminals.
Nope. I just realise that a legal gun can quickly and easily become illegal if you have no registration of weapons and no records of sales.

Let's reference already existing Federal laws, shall we?
If you must... Anyway, I don't buy that none of those ever works, which is your main point.

The good guys don't legally have guns there - which is part of why the cartels can take over towns with impunity.
...and we all know that good guys don't turn into bad boys, don't we?

(The other part is that the cartels have raided Mexican military armories.)
I would have thought that corruption plays a huge part... :rolleyes:

It's gotten so bad in Mexico that formerly law-abiding citizens are now breaking the law there, forming militias and arming themselves as best they can so they can survive.
Oh, Autodefensas - that's a novel idea. Not. More often than not, those guys become part of the problem faster than you can pull a trigger; see Colombia for an example.

The walls, fences, patrols, cameras, drones, etc., are only within a few dozen miles of cities along the southern border. Most of the border doesn't have a fence or anything. Most of it looks like this:
(...)
This is shot from the Mexican side of the border, looking across to the US and Interstate 8 in California, east of San Diego. You see any barriers?
No, I don't, but
a) that photo is apparently from 2011 and Google Earth does show a narrow black line in the sand b) no barriers doesn't mean no patrols, no drones, no sensors, no nothing.

Here's how bad it is:
Interesting how you don't post a map of the entire border, but just the part where the Rio Grande already forms a natural barrier. Any more of those that are included in the "not secured" statistics due to the lack of a fence? :rolleyes:

And in places where there is a fence, it's so poorly monitored that this is possible.
So what you need is monitoring, not a fence along the Rio Grande. Got it.

Weapons get into the US the same way, sometimes with the drugs.
Except for the fact that the net direction of gun trafficking is into Mexico, not out of it, which shows just beautifully how quickly legal guns can become illegal ones.

Actually, we have suggested things that are proven to work in the US - Level has concentrated on community programs and the like in his offerings (which, surprisingly, did work); I've mentioned Project Exile.
Community programmes... wasn't there some guy who ran for a high office - even got elected - who was ridiculed for being a former community organiser? IIRC, some of the words used were "communist", "lefty loon" and, strangely enough, "fascist". Rid the US of such nonsense (i.e. of the "Tea Party" movement) and you may get somewhere.

You may be able to drive a nail into a wall without a hammer, for instance using a large pair of pliers, but to get a result that's remotely comparable to the real deal, you have to be very lucky or truly skilled.

- - - Updated - - -

Re drug war and Mexico. The reason it is so violent down there is because the drug war is in full swing and there is nothing legal about the drugs or the guns.
But many of the guns were, at one time, purchased legally in the US: Gun Runners For Mexican Cartels Keep US Gun Shops In Business: Report
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,726
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Please remind me: What's the risk of being clubbed to death from dozens of feet or yards away? Compared to a semi-automatic rifle, how quickly can your average high-school dropout kill with just a knife?
In the recent Isla Vista killings, the crazed madman stabbed three people to death but only managed to kill two people with his firearms. Looks like the knife was a wee bit deadlier than the firearm - he was 100% on knife kills and well under 50% on gun kills (he shot at more than 4 people and only killed two).

As for knife control, I'm perfectly at ease with banning switchblades and the like for everyone who doesn't have a very good reason to own one.
Switchblades, bali-songs (butterfly), gravity and flick knives are already Federally banned from import and carry and have been for 50 years. Ballistic knives are a recent addition to that list. People still get killed with them all the same. I can still buy all the above on the street.

I agree on the problem, but your idea that laws change nothing is asinine. Laws ended slavery, laws ended segregation and laws can certainly help against gun violence.
Funny, I was under the impression that the law against slavery ended up having to be enforced by a war here in the US. Segregation was not ended by laws being passed but by a court decision. And then by the military being called out to force compliance.

Nope. I just realise that a legal gun can quickly and easily become illegal if you have no registration of weapons and no records of sales.
We have states with full registration and tracking laws, full dealer-only sales. Even if you leave out weapons from other states that migrated in, they've had no effect. 'Registered' guns can disappear off the records fast - stolen, given to family members, owner dies, lots of different reasons. Just look at California (cites already upthread) - 'registered' firearms turn up at crime scenes all the time there, only to have the police find that the weapons were 'stolen', actually stolen, or that the registered owner was long deceased.

If you must... Anyway, I don't buy that none of those ever works, which is your main point.
And yet others and I have been presenting statistical evidence that they do not work under conditions as they currently pertain. Others and I have also said that we welcome *new* suggestions, but so far all you have presented are the same old tired ideas already proven to either not work or be unworkable/unenforceable.

...and we all know that good guys don't turn into bad boys, don't we?
And what law would prevent this, again?

I would have thought that corruption plays a huge part... :rolleyes:
No, they actually raided the military and police armories.


A lot of the cartel 'soldiers' are actually ex-Mexican elite troops. Los Zetas is the 'best' example of that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Zetas


Oh, Autodefensas - that's a novel idea. Not. More often than not, those guys become part of the problem faster than you can pull a trigger; see Colombia for an example.
Perhaps. Specific citation to prove your assertion, please.

No, I don't, but
a) that photo is apparently from 2011 and Google Earth does show a narrow black line in the sand b) no barriers doesn't mean no patrols, no drones, no sensors, no nothing.
The patrols are few and far between and nowhere near well enough staffed, the drones can only take pretty pictures of the people getting away (when they're not being used to watch US citizens instead - by the way, there's only ten of them to cover over 3000km), and the sensors don't work. Please note that all the above links are from this year.


Interesting how you don't post a map of the entire border, but just the part where the Rio Grande already forms a natural barrier. Any more of those that are included in the "not secured" statistics due to the lack of a fence? :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_barrier

The 1,951-mile (3,141 km) border between the United States and Mexico traverses a variety of terrains, including urban areas and deserts. The barrier is located on both urban and uninhabited sections of the border, areas where the most concentrated numbers of illegal crossings and drug trafficking have been observed in the past. These urban areas include San Diego, California and El Paso, Texas. As of August 29, 2008, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had built 190 miles (310 km) of pedestrian border fence and 154.3 miles (248.3 km) of vehicle border fence, for a total of 344.3 miles (554.1 km) of fence. The completed fence is mainly in New Mexico, Arizona, and California, with construction under way in Texas.[4]

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it had more than 580 miles (930 km) of fence in place by the second week of January, 2009.[5] Work is still under way on fence segments in Texas and on the Border Infrastructure System in California.
Let's see. 1951 miles minus 580 miles in 2009 leaves... more than 1300 miles lacking a physical fence.

The border fence is not one continuous structure and is actually a grouping of short physical walls that stop and start, secured in between with "virtual fence" which includes a system of sensors and cameras monitored by Border Patrol Agents.
Remember, according to CBP themselves, the sensors and cameras don't actually work. Or when they do, they can't get someone out there to do anything before the people or smugglers are gone.

The Rio Grande is pretty much wadable or driveable through much of its length especially during the summer. It's not much of a barrier. Here is the mighty Rio Grande in Juarez, across from El Paso:


And the Rio Grande in summer in Big Bend National Park on the Texas border with Mexico:


Some 'barrier'.

As for the graphic, it's what I had to hand. Here's the 'whole border':

2006:
'Only 75 miles of fence now' - please note all the proposed fence locations.



Or perhaps you would like the BBC better as a source? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4987784.stm


Please note short existing barriers.

From this year: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/11/border-fence-texas-immigration-bill/8851595/

the 670 miles of U.S. border fence
Most of the border is still wide fucking open.


So what you need is monitoring, not a fence along the Rio Grande. Got it.
No, we need both. We've tried the 'virtual fence' with monitoring and by itself it doesn't work. It takes pretty pictures, but most of the time nobody can get there to apprehend the people in time.

A properly planned fence system does seem to work somewhat: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2008/0401/p01s05-usgn.html

Except for the fact that the net direction of gun trafficking is into Mexico, not out of it, which shows just beautifully how quickly legal guns can become illegal ones.
The government tried to prove that with Operation Fast & Furious, where they illegally ran guns to the cartels in Mexico. Unfortunately, all they proved was that the direction of flow is generally FROM Mexico because the guns are turning up in the US instead.


Community programmes... wasn't there some guy who ran for a high office - even got elected - who was ridiculed for being a former community organiser? IIRC, some of the words used were "communist", "lefty loon" and, strangely enough, "fascist". Rid the US of such nonsense (i.e. of the "Tea Party" movement) and you may get somewhere.
The fact that Obama was a community organizer has nothing to do with the other labels. Community organizing is not viewed as inherently 'communist,' 'lefty,' or 'fascist.' However, Communists, lefties and fascists can *do* community organizing. So can neo-Nazis/skinheads, white supremacists, Black Panthers, etc., etc. Community organizing in and of itself is none of these things.

On the other hand, hiring a 'community organizer' to be your President is a lot like hiring someone with a degree and professional experience in basket weaving (and only basket weaving) to be your surgeon. Their experience is not relevant and the results will be predictably terrible.

You may be able to drive a nail into a wall without a hammer, for instance using a large pair of pliers, but to get a result that's remotely comparable to the real deal, you have to be very lucky or truly skilled.
What does this have to do with anything?
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,744
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
You and others follow the rule every time someone suggests gun control measures. Every time a suggestion is made, it's shot down because "it won't end all gun crime" - as if anyone said it would.
Great thing about the US, it's a bit of a hodge podge of semi independent states. So some have tougher measures and others have more lenient measures. What it gives us is the ability to compare and contrast what works and what does not, so far it has been shown that tougher gun control has not had any effect on gun crime.

Registration? Cannot work and will lead to confiscation. *
No it HAS lead to confiscation in several states. Also Canada seems to agree with the "cannot work" part as they have dismantled their long gun registry

Limitations? Cannot work because killers will just bring more of the smaller guns and/or magazines. **
Again has been shown not to work in multiple cases, in Sandy Hook for example Lanza only made around 5-6 shots per mag and then reloaded.
Bans? Cannot work because criminals are criminals through and through and don't care about the ban. ***
See above about different states having different laws and how we can compare them.
Mandatory safe storage? Cannot work because that defeats the whole purpose of owning a gun. ****
Already the case in many places with very high gun violence, Lanza took his mother's guns in a state with mandatory safe storage requirements. Aside from that yes it's idiotic to keep your gun that you are going to use for self-defense locked in a safe on the other side of the house. Perfectly fine to keep one in or near your night stand though don't you think?

** No, a semi-automatic rifle has no greater destructive power than a handgun. They're just purrrdy, that's why people pay extra for them.
You keep saying "semi-automatic rifle" as if it's some sort of an exotic weapon. Just about every hunting rifle is a semi-auto, meaning that you get one shot per trigger pull. Destructive power of one highly depends on what type it is, a 10/22 Ruger that shoots tiny 22 cal bullets is much less destructive than a 50 cal Desert Eagle, and yes it is a semi-auto.
*** And don't start with supply and demand - we all know that decreasing the supply of a good raises its price, except for guns because those are different.
Even if did raise prices (as various bans have in the past) why do you think it would make much of a difference? We have evidence of criminals producing their own guns already. Even forgetting that, do you think that would stop any kind of large number of criminals from getting those guns? Remember most of the gun violence is not random by any means it is due to gang wars.
**** Don't you dare ask how exactly people expect to defend themselves once their own guns have been taken out of the cupboard and pointed at them! And I need my sporting rifle for self-defence, too.[/I]
Don't keep the gun in a cupboard and keep it near yourself? Anyone who would use a sporting rifle for self-defense is going to have a bad time but you are getting into basic common sense territory here.

See you keep giving all these examples of our rebuttals but you are completely glossing over one simple fact (I suppose that's your rule number one?) our responses are not baseless speculation, they are all based on things that have been tried or are being done in this country.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway, perhaps one simple question can help:

Do you believe that gun crime in the USA is a problem that needs to be solved?
I believe that crime is a problem in the USA, mostly crime stemming from the drug war actually (sounds an awful lot like prohibition).

So you basically expect magic to happen. Fight gun crime, but don't do anything about the guns - that's like fighting fires without doing anything about the fuel.
My apartment has a sprinkler system and a fire extinguisher, but quite a bit of wooden stuff and no one so far has told me how much gasoline I'm allowed to buy or how I have to store it...
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,726
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Again has been shown not to work in multiple cases, in Sandy Hook for example Lanza only made around 5-6 shots per mag and then reloaded.
The Columbine massacre was conducted mostly with low-capacity magazines. Harris used a High Point 995 carbine with 13 ten round magazines. He fired that 96 times. He also used a Savage 67H shotgun which does not have a detachable magazine and must be reloaded singly - he fired that 25 times. (There were no so-called assault rifles used at Columbine. Or Virginia Tech. Or Isla Vista.)

I find it interesting that calvinhobbes here keeps harping on and on and on about how the 'semi-automatic rifles' are responsible for most of the deaths in these incidents when the statistics his own side has produced and he himself was defending just a few pages ago disprove his statement completely!
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,813
So you basically expect magic to happen. Fight gun crime, but don't do anything about the guns - that's like fighting fires without doing anything about the fuel.
Gun control is like banning 91 octane at the pump - huge inconvenience to motorists, yet no actual effect on fires.


Right. So "more guns in more places" is, in your opinion, an important step towards solving the problem of "too many people get shot". I suppose that eliminating speed limits is your idea for keeping people from getting run over?
This has been covered several times already. Mass shooters seek out gun-free zones where they know they won't meet resistance.


More guns + more drugs = safer environment? Is that why Mexico is so much safer than the US? :confused:
Neither drugs nor guns are problematic. However, illegal drugs fuel violence. Ever notice how crime was very high between the passage of the 18th and the 21st amendments?


What do you suggest, apart from the walls, fences, patrols, ditches, cameras, drones, deserts, vigilantes etc. that already exist?
Are you seriously suggesting that the border is as secure as can be? :lmao: Anyways, the Rio Grande is not nearly as impassible as you seem to think. That and it diverges from the border about half way through New Mexico (even before that it becomes the smaller Rio Bravo). Most of the Arizona border does not have any significant barriers.


The US already has an insanely high incarceration rate, so what is that going to improve?
End the war on drugs, let prisoners serving time for drug-related offenses out, and voila, you have plenty of room for violent criminals... you know, the ones that are an actual risk to Americans (imagine if Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama realized that).


You simply cannot claim that "gun control is proven not to work" and then suggest alternatives that keep failing day in, day out. None of your own suggestions is realistic and/or practical, yet you act as if one that can work, if done right, is heresy.
Not only do we already have strict gun control measures (which don't seem to work), we've already tried even stricter ones and they too did not work. Studies show that the 94 Assault Weapons Ban did not have any effect on violent crime. My suggestions haven't been tried, so I'm not sure how you can claim that they "keep failing day in, day out".


Please remind me: What's the risk of being clubbed to death from dozens of feet or yards away? Compared to a semi-automatic rifle, how quickly can your average high-school dropout kill with just a knife?
You're blaming high-school dropouts now?


As for knife control, I'm perfectly at ease with banning switchblades and the like for everyone who doesn't have a very good reason to own one.
None of your damn business why someone wants to own one. Stop judging people who haven't committed any crimes.


I agree on the problem, but your idea that laws change nothing is asinine. Laws ended slavery, laws ended segregation and laws can certainly help against gun violence.
I don't even...


Nope. I just realise that a legal gun can quickly and easily become illegal if you have no registration of weapons and no records of sales.
And I realize that registration has lead to confiscation of private property protected by the constitution in several states.


If you must... Anyway, I don't buy that none of those ever works, which is your main point.
But wait, shouldn't all those laws have prevented gun violence?


...and we all know that good guys don't turn into bad boys, don't we?
Are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to own guns because I might become a criminal? Please tell me that I misinterpreted you.


I would have thought that corruption plays a huge part... :rolleyes:
It would probably help if the United States government did not traffic illegal guns to the cartels.


Oh, Autodefensas - that's a novel idea. Not. More often than not, those guys become part of the problem faster than you can pull a trigger; see Colombia for an example.
We are helpless without Big Brother. Now move along citizen, there is nothing to see here.


a) that photo is apparently from 2011 and Google Earth does show a narrow black line in the sand b) no barriers doesn't mean no patrols, no drones, no sensors, no nothing.
:lol:


Interesting how you don't post a map of the entire border, but just the part where the Rio Grande already forms a natural barrier. Any more of those that are included in the "not secured" statistics due to the lack of a fence? :rolleyes:
Interesting how you keep talking about subjects that you haven't bothered to research for even five minutes. Read.



So what you need is monitoring, not a fence along the Rio Grande. Got it.
A camera does not prevent someone from crossing the border, does it? But yes, monitoring would help.


Except for the fact that the net direction of gun trafficking is into Mexico, not out of it, which shows just beautifully how quickly legal guns can become illegal ones.
:rolleyes: Yes, that's what all the local gun owners did last weekend - went down to Mexico and smuggled our guns across.


Community programmes... wasn't there some guy who ran for a high office - even got elected - who was ridiculed for being a former community organiser? IIRC, some of the words used were "communist", "lefty loon" and, strangely enough, "fascist". Rid the US of such nonsense (i.e. of the "Tea Party" movement) and you may get somewhere.
:roflmao: Yes, the community organizer has done a fantastic job! :lol:


You may be able to drive a nail into a wall without a hammer, for instance using a large pair of pliers, but to get a result that's remotely comparable to the real deal, you have to be very lucky or truly skilled.
The problem is not guns! Neither Spectre nor I have shot up any schools or movie theaters! How can you possibly deny that violence is a socioeconomic issue?


But many of the guns were, at one time, purchased legally in the US: Gun Runners For Mexican Cartels Keep US Gun Shops In Business: Report
GRtak just told me that my idea of mandatory licensing is anti gun control :dunno: With that in place, however, you wouldn't be able to walk into any story and walk out with a gun.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,726
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Here is the direct access link for that Mother Jones 'statistics' garbage from a couple pages back.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AswaDV9q95oZdG5fVGJTS25GQXhSTDFpZXE0RHhUdkE#gid=0

Original link to prove provenance: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

Let's just do a straight sum of the 'weapon categories' tab and the weapons count columns, shall we?

There are 66 incidents listed. As indicated earlier, they're missing a few, but let's just take it at face value for now.

In those 66 incidents, there were:
73 Semiauto Handguns
29 Rifles (not just 'assault rifles' or 'semi-auto rifles' but hunting rifles, target rifles, even shooting arcade rifles - this is rifles of *all* types.)
24 Revolvers
23 Shotguns

But somehow the 'assault weapons' are the weapon of choice according to calvinhobbes - even though they weren't even present for more than half the presented incidents!!!!! 'Don't confuse me with facts, I know what I know!'
 
Top