• After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
    853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52743068]We already did all that with the assault weapons ban. It didn't do anything to limit gun crime. It's practically common knowledge that gun crime overall has actually decreased after the ban expired. Literally all it did was piss off people who owned guns and helped shape the NRA into the retarded hardline mess it is today because everyone who ever had to deal with that pointlessly draconian legislation said "never again".[/QUOTE] lol this is why I rarely participate in gun debates. It's the same tired points over and over again. The AWB didn't go nearly far enough, and its effectiveness was measured in too short a period. Even if we were to fully halt the production of weapons nationwide, we likely wouldn't see noticeable impacts in gun crime for 10-20 years owing simply to the massive stockpile of weapons already here. That stockpile needs to be reduced, and that's going to take a long time.
[QUOTE=Nukedrabbit95;52742982]Rehabilitate gun addicts? Lol that's a new one. [B]I was talking about alcohol for that paragraph hoping you'd use your brain to actually get the comparisons, but ok.[/B] On the flip side, alcohol in small amounts can lead you to think you're okay to drive and end up crashing into another car and killing 3 people, and bullets in small amounts can let you go out to the range with your buddies and have some fun plinking. [B]Which is why drinking alone is bad, have other people stop you, there's campaigns everywhere for this. On the other hand, if you want to shoot a small amount of bullets at a person (which is the intended purpose of a gun, idgaf about your friends and their harmless antics) then any friend that tries to stop you is just as likely to get shot and die. Also self driving cars some day, cars that can recognize signs of intoxication some day.[/B] Here's another thing I wanna mention. America is a huge nation with single states that have larger populations than entire European nations. There are massive amounts of wealth inequality, social inequality, racial inequality. There's tons of diversity, people of vastly different backgrounds and ideas, beliefs, etc. Our health and education systems are broken and getting worse. Political corruption is on a dramatic rise. There's a pervasive cultural attitude of hyper-individualism that encourages "bootstraps" and "fuck you got mine" rather than provide communal support to those in need. People are becoming more and more isolated. [B]Yeah, it's a bad country for the most part.[/B] Why is it any surprise that there's more violence in America than small, homogeneous nations with well functioning political, health, and educational systems? [B]Estonia and Portugal are as homogeneous as Washington and Texas[/B] America might be an outlier among rich western nations in terms of gun deaths (it doesn't even come close to places like El Salvador, Brazil, or South Africa), but other rich western nations don't strike me as so inequal and dysfunctional either. [B]yeah, you're better off than the extremes, what an achievement for "the greatest country in the world"[/B] I wonder, if you just took away gang violence from the statistic of ~36 gun-related homocides per 1 million people a year, what would you be left with? Because you don't solve gangs by banning guns, that's for sure. [B][URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html"]You'd lose less than 20%[/URL][/B] If you only look at true lone-wolf style mass shootings, how does the US actually compare to the rest of the world? I bet, and obviously I don't have the numbers and cannot prove this assertion, that America's gun problem isn't as ludicrously out of control as is commonly asserted. [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26822013"]Well, the US is 5% of the world's population, approx, but has had 31% of its mass shootings so.[/URL] [B]CONCLUSION: The United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators.[/B] Which is why I don't believe in banning guns. I say that we can have a society where guns are not restricted to the hands of a tiny minority in the most non-lethal way possible, [i]and[/i] a society where gun homocides are not 10 times as high as the next rich western nation. [B]Well here's a plan. Have sensible gun control, THEN educate your failing populace on the world stage THEN re-open gun laws.[/B] But it will take more than band-aid solutions.[B] Too bad America and the current President only seem to be capable of band-aid solutions for fear of offending the gun lobby [/B] [/QUOTE]
Really what's with all the theorizing when there's evidence on the efficacy on gun control, which is generally in favor of it. here's a few [URL]https://www.nber.org/papers/w18294[/URL] [URL]https://www.nber.org/papers/w23510[/URL] - carry laws increasing violence [URL]http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2014/02/17/whats_the_matter_with_the_missouri_murder_rate_841.html[/URL] - missouri getting rid of background checks near assuredly increased the homicide rate [URL]http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf[/URL] - Buybacks have positive effects. [URL]http://www.gsoa.ch/media/medialibrary/2010/12/Lubin_10.pdf[/URL] - same with the IDF The worst problem the United States faces is that, at this stage, we just have a massive amount of guns. That is going to take quite a large effort to deal with when there's almost as many guns as people. I think that you should be able to own virtually any gun you want, but it should not be remotely an easy process, making it difficult is a start. As well, buybacks, registration/license costs, etc. can be used to try to destroy the supply of guns over time.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743081]lol this is why I rarely participate in gun debates. It's the same tired points over and over again.[/QUOTE] My man, i dont think you want to be the one saying this. You're clearly not reading a bunch of replies to you.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52743078]BDA do you know how a gun works? Honest question. Not just "pull trigger bullet come out", i mean do you actually know what a gun does? Do you know what squeezing the trigger actually does? Or how the bullet comes out?[/QUOTE] I should hope so. I disassembled, cleaned, and fired enough of them in the military.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52743071]People locked up in prison have made guns too. One again you're acting like it requires some innate and difficult to aquire knowledge to build a gun. As I've explained, and you've seemed to ignore, anyone with basic tools can make a gun. In face it is easier to make a full auto than it is to make a semi-auto. To go back to my example of the sten, a trip to the hardware store can give you more than you need to build one. [IMG]http://www.tornado-technologies.com/images/STEN/STEN_MKII_cutaway_2.jpg[/IMG] It is literally a tube, a spring, and a weight with a firing pin.[/QUOTE] What point is this supposed to make? "An insane person without guns would go and make a low rate of fire loud piece of shit that would most likely jam" Funny how they haven't, right? The London knife/van terrorists had several perpetrators, they could have spent a week making guns but they didn't.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52743087]My man, i dont think you want to be the one saying this. You're clearly not reading a bunch of replies to you.[/QUOTE] I'm reading it all, and disagreeing with the reasoning behind it. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean that I'm not hearing you. Repeatedly thrusting "Gotcha!" arguments that I've already responded to, though?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743054]Again: alcohol is nearly impossible to prevent the production of. People actively locked in prison make it in their toilets with leftover cafeteria fruit. Guns, not so much. They require specialized equipment, skills, and materials to produce. Your condescending argument is ridiculous. Halting the mass manufacturing of guns would cripple the supply, and it would be impossible to recapture even a fraction of that through illicit channels -- unlike moonshiners and toilet winers.[/QUOTE] Isn't it worth trying? Can we really as compassionate individuals focused on the preservation of life, first and foremost, give it a go? Surely stopping legal availability and production of [I]thing that should be illegal[/I] would knock down that 88,000 figure just a little, even if just one life? It certainly sounds familiar. Seems worth it to me, if we're trying to bring deaths down.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52743099]What point is this supposed to make? "An insane person without guns would go and make a low rate of fire loud piece of shit that would most likely jam" Funny how they haven't, right? The London knife/van terrorists have several perpetrators, they could have spent a week making guns but they didn't.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. Criminals aren't uber-rational actors who immediately go for the most dastardly way they can commit crimes. So while it is still possible to DIY your guns, and even make them quite well, that doesn't mean that increased gun control doesn't have a positive effect.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;52743072]Couldn't you privately own [i]artillery pieces[/i] back then?[/QUOTE] Yeah, there was privately owned artillery back then. Not to mention it was a period when there was starting to be some evolution in gun technology, while most wouldn't make too big a splash (puckle gun), the ideas were there and some were major (Girandoni air rifle, in service in Austria from the 1780s until 1815, Lewis and Clark used them on their expedition) advances that did signal the future.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743081]lol this is why I rarely participate in gun debates. It's the same tired points over and over again. The AWB didn't go nearly far enough, and its effectiveness was measured in too short a period. [/QUOTE] People lose their shit over "assault weapon bans" which in the past have simply been a ban on imports. Do you really thing anything you're proposing in this thread is even remotely palatable in America? [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743081]Even if we were to fully halt the production of weapons nationwide, we likely wouldn't see noticeable impacts in gun crime for 10-20 years owing simply to the massive stockpile of weapons already here. That stockpile needs to be reduced, and that's going to take a long time.[/QUOTE] I'm no expert but considering there's a gun for nearly every man woman and child in this country based on conservative estimates and two on other estimates I'm not so sure 10-20 years would even put a dent in the gun supply.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52743071]People locked up in prison have made guns too. One again you're acting like it requires some innate and difficult to aquire knowledge to build a gun. As I've explained, and you've seemed to ignore, anyone with basic tools can make a gun. In face it is easier to make a full auto than it is to make a semi-auto. To go back to my example of the sten, a trip to the hardware store can give you more than you need to build one. [IMG]http://www.tornado-technologies.com/images/STEN/STEN_MKII_cutaway_2.jpg[/IMG] It is literally a tube, a spring, and a weight with a firing pin.[/QUOTE] you'd think if these were so effective/ easy to make, people would much rather make these than risk expensive and shady black market deals
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52743099]What point is this supposed to make? "An insane person without guns would go and make a low rate of fire loud piece of shit that would most likely jam" Funny how they haven't, right? The London knife/van terrorists had several perpetrators, they could have spent a week making guns but they didn't.[/QUOTE] Because it takes a lot less time to run people over with a car than to build a gun. Why take the time to do something when. You want to kill people NOW.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52743114]you'd think if these were so effective/ easy to make, people would much rather make these than risk expensive and shady black market deals[/QUOTE] Thats not the point.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52743119]Thats not the point.[/QUOTE] Then what is?
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52743071]People locked up in prison have made guns too. One again you're acting like it requires some innate and difficult to aquire knowledge to build a gun. As I've explained, and you've seemed to ignore, anyone with basic tools can make a gun. In face it is easier to make a full auto than it is to make a semi-auto. To go back to my example of the sten, a trip to the hardware store can give you more than you need to build one. [IMG]http://www.tornado-technologies.com/images/STEN/STEN_MKII_cutaway_2.jpg[/IMG] It is literally a tube, a spring, and a weight with a firing pin.[/QUOTE] I could make a zipgun in an afternoon, sure, but it'd be effectively useless for mass violence. The more complicated the weapon, the more difficult it is to produce, and the more chances there are for something to go wrong during the manufacturing process. Either way, to return to the points I've already made, forcing the production of hodgepodge homebrew weapons presents a major barrier to would-be mass shooters. It means that availability of weapons has been gutted, and (by extension) that the majority of people who "need" guns either have to learn specialized skills and acquire specialized toolsets to create guns (which may or not function as intended), or have to try and find people who do so that they can purchase them. This effectively places firearms out of the reach of the majority of people who would need them, because the supply of homebrew weapons can never hope to match a fraction of the current supply of made-daily assault weapons by major weapon manufacturers. Nobody is going to "just happen" to have an assault weapon nearby when they need it. They'll have to plan, and search, and expose themselves, presenting many new opportunities to prevent shootings before they ever happen.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52743123]Then what is?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743054]Again: alcohol is nearly impossible to prevent the production of. People actively locked in prison make it in their toilets with leftover cafeteria fruit. Guns, not so much. Your condescending argument is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52743114]you'd think if these were so effective/ easy to make, people would much rather make these than risk expensive and shady black market deals[/QUOTE] You don't see it in the US because full auto anything brings down the feds hardcore. Where a handgun crime typically only involves local law enforcement, a full auto brings in the ATF.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52743102]Isn't it worth trying? Can we really as compassionate individuals focused on the preservation of life, first and foremost, give it a go? Surely stopping legal availability and production of [I]thing that should be illegal[/I] would knock down that 88,000 figure just a little, even if just one life? It certainly sounds familiar. Seems worth it to me, if we're trying to bring deaths down.[/QUOTE] The thing that should be illegal are guns ([B]for the most part[/B]) You also ignored everything everyone said and just keep going with this wannabe faux-zing of THINK OF THE CHILDREN without responding to any of the arguments... Alcohol is regulated, and it's good that it is, children shouldn't be able to get their hands on beer (which is why countries usually have big fines for people who buy alcohol for kids) Stores shouldn't sell alcohol past a certain time (Estonia does this, deaths from alcohol poisoning it's plateaud and [URL="http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/profiles/est.pdf"]started dropping fast since 2008[/URL]. It's still very high but we're coming down. [URL="http://alkoinfo.ee/et/moju/alkoholi-toime/ulevaade-statistikast/"]Public intoxication has dropped significantly. ) [/URL] [URL="https://i.imgur.com/Kh64Q1a.png"]Alcohol laws have gotten stricter and stricter over the years[/URL] And it's working lol. Now imagine if we apply this to guns. Stop selling guns at wal-mart. Make sure people that don't qualify for gun ownership (the bar should be set MUCH higher than alcohol) can't get guns. Ban open-carry completely.
[QUOTE=StonedPenguin;52743112]People lose their shit over "assault weapon bans" which in the past have simply been a ban on imports. Do you really thing anything you're proposing in this thread is even remotely palatable in America? [/quote] Palatable? Nope. Possible, and enforceable? Yep. [quote]I'm no expert but considering there's a gun for nearly every man woman and child in this country based on conservative estimates and two on other estimates I'm not so sure 10-20 years would even put a dent in the gun supply.[/QUOTE] No doubt it would take decades to weather down the stockpile, but it would happen. Weapons would slowly be seized from illegal trades, captured in unrelated policing, destroyed in voluntary gun drives, stop functioning due to a lack of care and maintenance, etc, etc. The important thing is that we gut production, so that we stop [I]replenishing[/I] and [I]growing[/I] the stockpile.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743127]I could make a zipgun in an afternoon, sure, but it'd be effectively useless for mass violence. The more complicated the weapon, the more difficult it is to produce, and the more chances there are for something to go wrong during the manufacturing process. Either way, to return to the points I've already made, forcing the production of hodgepodge homebrew weapons presents a major barrier to would-be mass shooters. It means that availability of weapons has been gutted, and (by extension) that the majority of people who "need" guns either have to learn specialized skills and acquire specialized toolsets to create guns (which may or not function as intended), or have to try and find people who do so that they can purchase them. This effectively places firearms out of the reach of the majority of people who would need them, because the supply of homebrew weapons can never hope to match a fraction of the current supply of made-daily assault weapons by major weapon manufacturers. Nobody is going to "just happen" to have an assault weapon nearby when they need it. They'll have to plan, and search, and expose themselves, presenting many new opportunities to prevent shootings before they ever happen.[/QUOTE] My point here is the sten gun is not complicated. It was designed to be incredibly simple, with the MKIII varient bring designed to be manufactured by resistance members. The sten is quite literally the simplest firearm to make. Though since you apparently know how they work from your experiences in the military, please explain to everyone why they're apparently so complicated.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52743116]Because it takes a lot less time to run people over with a car than to build a gun. Why take the time to do something when. You want to kill people NOW.[/QUOTE] Yeah, thanks for rebutting your own point lol
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52743130][/QUOTE] The thing is though, it matters that homemade guns are much less effective
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52743149]The thing is though, it matters that homemade guns are much less effective[/QUOTE] That wasnt the point why it was brought up.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52743154]That wasnt the point why it was brought up.[/QUOTE] then explain it better
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52743158]then explain it better[/QUOTE] Dude are you fucking serious.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52743102]Isn't it worth trying? Can we really as compassionate individuals focused on the preservation of life, first and foremost, give it a go? Surely stopping legal availability and production of [I]thing that should be illegal[/I] would knock down that 88,000 figure just a little, even if just one life? It certainly sounds familiar. Seems worth it to me, if we're trying to bring deaths down.[/QUOTE] Well, the problem with that is that demand for alcohol is higher and physical addiction is actually a thing. It'd be like hard-banning dangerous drugs, you'll just empower the criminals who distribute it. Your best bet would be to [I]heavily[/I] regulate it, which incidentally is a thought I had on what to do about the gun problem. Like, restrict usage of higher-tier guns (discerned by someone who actually knows what they're fucking talking about) to ranges or something so people can still fuck around with neat guns without having them out and about and unaccounted for. Something like that, it's only a basic idea.
My thought is that particularly with modern surveillance it is lot easier to catch laymen attempting to produce effective firearms, I mean there are the famous joke about being put on watch lists when they google stuff. Surly it is not too difficult to notice that people are a taking out books or googling manufacturing techniques that are intended for firearm manufacturing specificly.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52743116]Because it takes a lot less time to run people over with a car than to build a gun. Why take the time to do something when. You want to kill people NOW.[/QUOTE] Right, which is exactly why reducing the availability of guns is a sound strategy for combating mass violence. Acquiring the equipment and expertise to craft your own automatic weapons is a significant barrier to entry for somebody who snaps and decides to go out in a blaze of glory. Likewise, trying to locate and purchase the limited supply of black market firearms for these people poses the same problem. Forcing an entire [I]process[/I] to try to find, purchase, or build your own puts them off the table for your average spree shooter. While that same spree shooter may turn to other methods of violence, none are quite so deadly as firearms, especially with limited training. A vehicle is not designed to plow through crowds of people. While still deadly, it's limited in its capability in a way that the deranged teenager who kills his mom and takes her assault rifle and several boxes of ammo isn't.
Am I correct in understanding that if it [I]were[/I] feasible, people here would support the banning of alcohol on the basis of public safety?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.