Gun Control: Where do you draw the line? - General

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38939094] If you limited guns for both [B][I]criminals[/I][/B] and civilians[/QUOTE] Dear God how do you people put up with this You CAN'T regulate CRIMINALS, and you said so yourself. THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. You're blowing this concern of yours WAY out of proportion. Not EVERYONE can afford an AK-47 and given that the there's a majority of law abiding citizens to criminals in most cases, they're already outnumbered.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38939094]The arms race continues to a point where it cannot progress any further. Are people safer? No. Crime rates are still the same. Are things worse? Yes. You have to carry around a weapon constantly now, and invest into expensive weaponry to maintain your personal safety. If you limited guns for both criminals and civilians, the same crime rates would exist, but people wouldn't be spending vast amounts of money and time on firearms.[/QUOTE] You're not more or less likely to be mugged if you have a gun. Have you ever heard of "concealed carry"? people who carry guns don't tape them to their fucking foreheads. And if crime rates won't change if we limit guns, then why limit guns?

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38939152]And if crime rates won't change if we limit guns, then why limit guns?[/QUOTE] Because, if everybody held guns for the purpose of self protection, it would be pointless. Criminals would target you all the same.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38939203]Because, if everybody held guns for the purpose of self protection, it would be pointless. Criminals would target you all the same.[/QUOTE] Then you can scare off the criminal with the gun you have.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38939227]Then you can scare off the criminal with the gun you have.[/QUOTE] But this doesn't solve the problem of crime. Scaring them away doesn't magically make crime stop or go away. It still exists and is a persistent problem independent of gun ownership.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38939248]But this doesn't solve the problem of crime. Scaring them away doesn't magically make crime stop or go away. It still exists and is a persistent problem independent of gun ownership.[/QUOTE] Then why remove guns from people? What's the point if nothing changes? Why should you force millions to give up their hobbies? Because they're scary?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38939248]But this doesn't solve the problem of crime. Scaring them away doesn't magically make crime stop or go away. It still exists and is a persistent problem independent of gun ownership.[/QUOTE] Then you bust a cap up their ass simple as that; you can't easily scare someone who also has a gun, so you'll have to strike first.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38939260]Then why remove guns from people? What's the point if nothing changes? Why should you force millions to give up their hobbies? Because they're scary?[/QUOTE] I didn't argue as such. But were somehow "magically" guns were to vanish, crime would still exist the same, and be unaffected (minus black market dealing in guns). The difference is that nobody would be spending money on guns they genuinely do not want (but rather got it to gain an advantage over criminals).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38939324]I didn't argue as such. But were somehow "magically" guns were to vanish, crime would still exist the same, and be unaffected (minus black market dealing in guns). The difference is that nobody would be spending money on guns they genuinely do not want (but rather got it to gain an advantage over criminals).[/QUOTE] Good point. I don't really have a counterpoint for that unless I knew a way to crack down on the criminal gun market. EDIT: It would be a better idea to prevent the circumstances that lead to people having to rob to survive, but noone in America would agree to higher taxes to help the poor, help healthcare, or schools, or anything really. Basically, Banning guns would only put a bandaid over the root problem, and it's the kind of problem noone wants to help.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38939324]I didn't argue as such. But were somehow "magically" guns were to vanish, crime would still exist the same, and be unaffected (minus black market dealing in guns). The difference is that nobody would be spending money on guns they genuinely do not want (but rather got it to gain an advantage over criminals).[/QUOTE] Oh wait, so you're on our side? We're not arguing that every goddamn person in America carry a gun; we're just against gun control.

No point arguing with Sobotnik, he is so firmly entrenched in his beliefs

[QUOTE=download;38941258]No point arguing with Sobotnik, he is so firmly entrenched in his beliefs[/QUOTE] Aren't we all? Every MassDebater knows it the moment they see the description under the board title.

can someone explain a reason why one would need to possess 100+ round "hunting" mags? otherwise let's regulate them like suppressors and flash suppressors, and automatic weapons also jessie james is just a paranoid nut who thinks he needs to carry a gun around 24/7 and live in a vault to stay alive. I've been to california, i didn't feel unusually unsafe, ive stayed in detroit not exactly safe in some parts, but carrying a gun wouldnt change that. the problem i see with guns and these shootings is that every time its some 15-20 something kid who's not even the owner of the gun, and the parents had bought it for him as a gift or something. GUNS ARE NOT TOYS, parents need to realise that

Maybe guns should be allowed on ranges but have to be stored in a locker type system with bullets provided on the range itself whilst you are in a bulletproof box with a hole pointing downrange. You'd have to fire all the rounds off before leaving the box. AKA you can own w/e the fuck gun you want, but you can't kill anyone with it.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;38945237]Maybe guns should be allowed on ranges but have to be stored in a locker type system with bullets provided on the range itself whilst you are in a bulletproof box with a hole pointing downrange. You'd have to fire all the rounds off before leaving the box. AKA you can own w/e the fuck gun you want, but you can't kill anyone with it.[/QUOTE] You don't really own the gun in that situation.

Nor does it deal with the hundreds of millions of firearms already in possession

[QUOTE=download;38945580]Nor does it deal with the hundreds of millions of firearms already in possession[/QUOTE] There isn't many ways to deal with them. Any system of gun control is going to have to have all of the existing legal firearms grandfathered in.

[QUOTE=Sableye;38945086]can someone explain a reason why one would need to possess 100+ round "hunting" mags? otherwise let's regulate them like suppressors and flash suppressors, and automatic weapons also jessie james is just a paranoid nut who thinks he needs to carry a gun around 24/7 and live in a vault to stay alive. I've been to california, i didn't feel unusually unsafe, ive stayed in detroit not exactly safe in some parts, but carrying a gun wouldnt change that. the problem i see with guns and these shootings is that every time its some 15-20 something kid who's not even the owner of the gun, and the parents had bought it for him as a gift or something. GUNS ARE NOT TOYS, parents need to realise that[/QUOTE] 1. They're not for hunting genius 2. You're right, we don't need 100 round mags but the thing is the goddamn politicians limit us too far so we're stuck with 10 round mags (in Cali). Ridiculous. At least let us have our 20 rounds, eh? What's even more ridiculous is that any criminal who is motivated enough and knows what they're doing can easily modify their 10 rounds to hold the maximum of 30; I met a few people at a range in Cali before who had 20-round magazines despite the law, and they're just responsible gun owners. Imagine what a criminal could do- we need to remove this law because it's bullshit. 3. Why regulate flash suppressors? 4. You're right; guns aren't toys, they're tools. But if the recipient can be responsible with tools then there is no problem in giving them a gun as a gift. After all, power drills and hammers aren't toys either but I'm sure they're given as gifts all the time. But the way you said it- this wasn't a fucking "birthday gift". The gun was stolen. [editline]23rd December 2012[/editline] Anyways, I think that there SHOULD be more gun regulations, but they should be focused on the people instead of the gun. And so far, all I see the democrats offering is ridiculous regulations on the way a gun looks, which is literally going to do NOTHING.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;38939992]Oh wait, so you're on our side? We're not arguing that every goddamn person in America carry a gun; we're just against gun control.[/QUOTE] Of course. However, increasing or decreasing the number of guns does jack shit to solve the causes of crime.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38949969]Of course. However, increasing or decreasing the number of guns does jack shit to solve the causes of crime.[/QUOTE] Penn and Teller would beg to differ. [video=youtube;0XrNzE39J8E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XrNzE39J8E[/video] Watch the entire thing; it takes every single anti-gun point in this thread and rapes it before throwing it into a ditch and pissing on it.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;38950013]Penn and Teller would beg to differ. [video=youtube;0XrNzE39J8E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XrNzE39J8E[/video] Watch the entire thing; it takes every single anti-gun point in this thread and rapes it before throwing it into a ditch and pissing on it.[/QUOTE] Yes, we have all seen the show. Penn cherrypicks statistics and the worst possible people to represent the opposition. He then asks loaded questions and then distracts people from seeing holes in his arguments by cutting people off, calling them assholes, and then flashing breasts. Teller makes funny faces in the background during this. However, that is more a criticism of Penn and Teller. That video has 2 main arguments: 1: More guns = less crime 2: Political, moral, philosophical arguments. Of the two, the first is already flimsy. The video does not actually consider the following when CCW laws were passed: 1. Did gun ownership rates increase? (Or did existing gun owners just start carrying guns in public?) 2. Did people carry them more in public places than beforehand? 3. Did people use them more to defend against crime? (Or were crime rates independent?) 4. Does it consider that people have different levels of risk? (People who are more risk adverse will buy guns for protection, just like people wearing seatbelts) 5. Does it consider that many of these CCW laws were passed in rural areas where gun ownership rates are considerably higher than in urban areas, and gun laws tend to be more relaxed anyways?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38950374]Yes, we have all seen the show. Penn cherrypicks statistics and the worst possible people to represent the opposition. He then asks loaded questions and then distracts people from seeing holes in his arguments by cutting people off, calling them assholes, and then flashing breasts. Teller makes funny faces in the background during this. However, that is more a criticism of Penn and Teller. That video has 2 main arguments: 1: More guns = less crime 2: Political, moral, philosophical arguments. Of the two, the first is already flimsy. The video does not actually consider the following when CCW laws were passed: 1. Did gun ownership rates increase? (Or did existing gun owners just start carrying guns in public?) 2. Did people carry them more in public places than beforehand? 3. Did people use them more to defend against crime? (Or were crime rates independent?) 4. Does it consider that people have different levels of risk? (People who are more risk adverse will buy guns for protection, just like people wearing seatbelts) 5. Does it consider that many of these CCW laws were passed in rural areas where gun ownership rates are considerably higher than in urban areas, and gun laws tend to be more relaxed anyways?[/QUOTE] 1) Yes, there are more guns in the US now than there ever have been before, and gun ownership rates are at the highest level they've been since 1994. That being said, people also did begin carrying their guns they already had as well. 2) It was illegal to carry them in public places beforehand, what do you think? Oh wait, I'd better actually answer that one, of course they didn't. 3) People did indeed use them more to defend against crime, at least a million incidents in a year. 4) I'm not sure where you're getting a seatbelt analogy here, but shall-issue CCW is available to everyone who passes appropriate background checks and proficiency tests. 5) CCW is not passed by county implying only rural counties have access to it, it is passed by state, and as of 2013 all 50 US States will have CCW law. The difference becomes shall-issue versus may-issue versus unrestricted. As of right now there are 4 unrestricted states, meaning there is no license needed to carry a gun. These are Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska, and Arizona. There are a further 36 States that are "shall-issue," which means that IF you meet the training requirements to get a CCW permit, you CANNOT be denied it by the sheriff. In both of these cases, it doesn't matter if it's a rural or urban area, everybody in these states, regardless of demographic, can get a CCW license. This means CCW is available, and is actually fairly common in, cities as well. It is not a rural/urban divide. The states where rural areas are more likely to get CCW than urban ones are the remaining US states, which are may-issue, meaning that the sheriff of your local county has the discretion to approve or deny your application even if you meet the requirements to get it. How the sheriff determines this is entirely arbitrary and under heavy criticism for corruption and favouritism, since it's often only the rich and powerful who get CCW permits in these "may-issue" areas.

[img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/540277_435177553218542_304302242_n.jpg[/img] just some more statistics.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38950635]1) Yes, there are more guns in the US now than there ever have been before, and gun ownership rates are at the highest level they've been since 1994. That being said, people also did begin carrying their guns they already had as well.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/[/url] [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx[/url] [img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sgcossbzcei5hhmpeq0ryq.gif[/img] There doesn't appear to be actually a longterm trend in rates of gun ownership increasing from two sources I have found. [url]http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xJ3Y2-CHYfMC&pg=PA63&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false[/url] This book also notes problems associated with measuring gun ownership rates. In some surveys used by Lott, it implies gun ownership rates skyrocketed from 42% in June 1993 to 51% 4 months later. This seems odder when it then counts ownership rates dropping to 37% a year after. [quote]2) It was illegal to carry them in public places beforehand, what do you think? Oh wait, I'd better actually answer that one, of course they didn't.[/quote] These things are difficult to measure. Did people carry their guns often in public after the laws were passed, and how many actually did? (I.e were the numbers significant?) [quote]3) People did indeed use them more to defend against crime, at least a million incidents in a year.[/quote] [quote]4) I'm not sure where you're getting a seatbelt analogy here, but shall-issue CCW is available to everyone who passes appropriate background checks and proficiency tests.[/quote] Only those risk adverse enough to carry guns with them would carry guns. Same applies to seatbelts. If it was left to people to decide, they would only put on seatbelts if they felt at risk. What this is arguing, is that people only get guns in response to criminal activity. Gun ownership does not affect criminal activity. (Let us assume it does. In this case, if a risk adverse owner notices crime rates have gone down, he would feel no need to continue carrying a gun in public. Crime rates would then consequently increase, and the rate of CCW permits and crime rates would eventually reach an equilibrium. [quote]5) CCW is not passed by county implying only rural counties have access to it, it is passed by state[/quote] Some states can actually differ considerably, and cities generally tend to favour gun control. Cities like Chicago and New York as a rule of thumb, have more gun regulation than Bumblefuck, Texas. [quote]and as of 2013 all 50 US States will have CCW law.[/quote] This is misleading. Not all of them will have the exact same law. [quote]The difference becomes shall-issue versus may-issue versus unrestricted. As of right now there are 4 unrestricted states, meaning there is no license needed to carry a gun. These are Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska, and Arizona. There are a further 36 States that are "shall-issue," which means that IF you meet the training requirements to get a CCW permit, you CANNOT be denied it by the sheriff. In both of these cases, it doesn't matter if it's a rural or urban area, everybody in these states, regardless of demographic, can get a CCW license. This means CCW is available, and is actually fairly common in, cities as well.[/quote] What about the other 24 states? [quote]It is not a rural/urban divide. The states where rural areas are more likely to get CCW than urban ones are the remaining US states, which are may-issue, meaning that the sheriff of your local county has the discretion to approve or deny your application even if you meet the requirements to get it.How the sheriff determines this is entirely arbitrary and under heavy criticism for corruption and favouritism, since it's often only the rich and powerful who get CCW permits in these "may-issue" areas.[/QUOTE] This is a dubious claim. If this were true, we would find a correlation between income and probability of a CCW permit. [editline]24th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BFG9000;38950753][img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/540277_435177553218542_304302242_n.jpg[/img] just some more statistics.[/QUOTE] Do note that armed robbery rates suddenly don't increase when you pass gun legislation. Correlation is not causation.

[quote] Do note that armed robbery rates suddenly don't increase when you pass gun legislation. Correlation is not causation.[/QUOTE] Which means pretty much all the arguments you've used go out the window

[QUOTE=download;38956231]Which means pretty much all the arguments you've used go out the window[/QUOTE] I'm arguing that giving people more guns doesn't solve crime. Restating that in a different wording doesn't suddenly invalidate my argument.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38956325]I'm arguing that giving people more guns doesn't solve crime. Restating that in a different wording doesn't suddenly invalidate my argument.[/QUOTE] But taking them away won't solve the problem any better, so why not just let us keep and build our guns, goddamnit

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38956325]I'm arguing that giving people more guns doesn't solve crime. Restating that in a different wording doesn't suddenly invalidate my argument.[/QUOTE] That argument is irrelevant. Even if it were true it wouldn't be a reason to get rid of them or even control them at all.

[QUOTE=Cooty;38932073]In what way is banning assault weapons detrimental to anyone? Do you need to be able to plug something with 30 bullets instead of 2? If as you say no criminals use them, then why are they needed at all? If you're desperate to fight criminals, do it with a handgun like anyone else would. Assault weapons are for soldiers, not for citizens to arm themselves and pretend they know what they're doing.[/QUOTE] Really? This argument AGAIN? You don't NEED a lot of things. Do you need air conditioning when a fan is cheaper and more energy efficient? No, but you'd like to have one. Do you need a high performance car when a cheap piece of shit is perfectly sufficient to get you where you need to be? Do you need fashionable clothing, ipods, smart phones, laptops etc etc? No you do not NEED any of these things, but you like having them. There are plenty of recreational and sporting purposes where "assault weapons" as you call them are perfectly applicable. In what way is banning mcdonalds detrimental to anyone? Do you need to be able to shove 4000 calories of trans fats and sugars down your gullet in one sitting? After all a steak and vegetable meal is much healthier and.... oh wait we live in this thing called a free society and we like having the ability to choose what we do with our lives. A more powerful car objectively has more capacity for danger than a less powerful car. Vehicular accidents result in many, many times more deaths every year than guns do, should we ban any car that is capable of doing more than highway speed at maximum output?

[QUOTE=BFG9000;38958537]But taking them away won't solve the problem any better, so why not just let us keep and build our guns, goddamnit[/QUOTE] I'm not even arguing for that. You can't assume that because I disagree with somebody, I therefore must be the opposition. Go shoot your guns at things. I don't give two shits. Just don't turn your hobby into a childish political agenda.