Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-15-2020, 04:59 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I never thought gay marriage would legalized.
I never thought men would be allowed to use the female bathrooms.
I never thought we would have de facto open borders and sanctuary cities.
You get the picture. The unthinkable has happened.

Total gun confiscation is a certainly a possibility.

Remember first they take away your second amendment rights so they can take away your first amendment rights.
I've been so entertained by the whacky logic in this!

I never thought we'd see innocent children separated from parents and confined to chain-link pens.
I never thought we'd see people denying the science confirming climate change.
I never thought the US would elect an ignorant, inexperienced president.
The unthinkable has happened. Therefore, the Zombie Apocalypse is certainly a possibility!

OR

I never thought we'd see tent cities of homeless people.
I never thought we'd see anyone shooting up a church or synagogue.
I never thought we'd see an anti-education Secretary of Education.
The unthinkable has happened. Therefore, people turning into kumquats is certainly a possibility!

Remember, first they* take away your First Amendment rights so they* can take away all your other amendment rights.



*Feel free to replace "they" with whatever group you distrust.
  #52  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:43 AM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
I'm quite certain Nancy Lanza would have said the same thing all the way up to December 13th, 2012. You cannot know that. You don't think so, certainly. You don't hope so, certainly. But you cannot know that. The only way your AR-15 can never be used to shoot somebody is if it is a pool of melted slag.
That's a ridiculous hypothetical though. You also can't guarantee that someone won't break into your home, steal a lamp, and use it to beat someone to death.
  #53  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:46 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
That's a ridiculous hypothetical though. You also can't guarantee that someone won't break into your home, steal a lamp, and use it to beat someone to death.
Hypothetical?

Sandy Hook actually happened. Nothing hypothetical about that. Unless you're one of those deniers?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #54  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:52 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
That's a ridiculous hypothetical though. You also can't guarantee that someone won't break into your home, steal a lamp, and use it to beat someone to death.
Certainly, you can perceive the differences between a lamp and an AR-15?

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 01-16-2020 at 10:53 AM.
  #55  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:00 AM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
Certainly, you can perceive the differences between a lamp and an AR-15?
The type of weapon is just a detail, murder is the problem.

Guns are powerful, words are powerful, rights are powerful. Without pesky 1st amendment rights the government wouldn't have to hear all these complaints, they could shut down any newspaper that speaks against them. But we also get the biased media circus we have today. With 5th amendment rights criminals that are probably guilty are not compelled to testify against themselves, but that protects the innocent too. With 2nd amendment the people have the right and to keep and bear arms, but some people will use weapons to murder others. We can not legislate away murder, it's just human nature unfortunately.

It's a huge country, 300,000,000 people. To have freedoms and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people there will always be a small amount of bad along with the vast good those freedoms provide.
  #56  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:09 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,238
So we should do nothing to try to stop or reduce murders then?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #57  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:09 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,882
I do not want to get involved in this "great debate," if that's what it is, but this statement caught my eye:

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
... And because I cannot do that, you should take away my AR-15, even though nobody will use it to shoot anyone.
How do you know nobody will shoot a person with it? Is the gun permanently disabled? If the AR-15 is at hand when the bad guy comes, are you committed to only firing warning shots?

Why do you have the AR-15 anyway? Sport hunting?
  #58  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:10 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
The type of weapon is just a detail, murder is the problem.

Guns are powerful, words are powerful, rights are powerful. Without pesky 1st amendment rights the government wouldn't have to hear all these complaints, they could shut down any newspaper that speaks against them. But we also get the biased media circus we have today. With 5th amendment rights criminals that are probably guilty are not compelled to testify against themselves, but that protects the innocent too. With 2nd amendment the people have the right and to keep and bear arms, but some people will use weapons to murder others. We can not legislate away murder, it's just human nature unfortunately.

It's a huge country, 300,000,000 people. To have freedoms and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people there will always be a small amount of bad along with the vast good those freedoms provide.
I hate to tell you this but the 2nd amendment doesn't do anything to protect your freedoms in a practical sense. Currently, the pro-gun rights people are supporting the more authoritarian of the two parties in the USA, which has put a proto-fascist person as their leader. Additionally, pro-gun rights people are supporting the party that has demonstrated increasing hostility to democratic principles.

But even ignoring all of that, the 2nd amendment still doesn't actually protect your freedoms. This idea is pure delusion. And furthermore, it is quite obvious that many countries have as much freedom as the USA without considerable civilian firearm ownership.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 01-16-2020 at 11:13 AM.
  #59  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:18 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
I'm quite certain Nancy Lanza would have said the same thing all the way up to December 13th, 2012. You cannot know that. You don't think so, certainly. You don't hope so, certainly. But you cannot know that. The only way your AR-15 can never be used to shoot somebody is if it is a pool of melted slag.
And therefore, the only way to be sure that a gun can never be used to shoot somebody is...

Regards,
Shodan
  #60  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:27 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
And therefore, the only way to be sure that a gun can never be used to shoot somebody is...

Regards,
Shodan
Sorry, I'm not following you. I explicitly state that it could not if were it melted into slag.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 01-16-2020 at 11:28 AM.
  #61  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:33 AM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So we should do nothing to try to stop or reduce murders then?
The murder rate has been going down since 1993. We have at least twice as many guns in the country now as we did then. AR-15s have been very popular for that entire time as well.

Not only that, but there is no correlation between gun ownership and murder rate, across all states, countries and history. https://medium.com/handwaving-freako...e-1108ed400be5

So, any proposal that starts with the logic "we need fewer guns in order to have fewer murders" is flawed.

That said, what's your suggestion for reducing murders?
  #62  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:38 AM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So we should do nothing to try to stop or reduce murders then?
As with any civilized society, we should make murder illegal and punish people for it, which we already do. IMO just because murder exists and the danger to your average person is over-sensationalized by the media, we still should not infringe on the Constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a very few people out of 300,000,000.
  #63  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:41 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
we still should not infringe on the Constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a very few people out of 300,000,000.
So you are against any and all laws that limit the arms a citizen can bear?
  #64  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:53 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
You can choose to exercise that right or not, but do not try to take that right away from other people just because of your fears or opinions.
With rights come responsibility. People lose their right to be free when they abuse that right by hurting others. That's why we have prisons. When they drive drunk, they lose that right because they are abusing it. Gun ownership should be no different. To say that right should not be legislated or controlled is absurd and a corruption of the concept itself.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #65  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:09 PM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So you are against any and all laws that limit the arms a citizen can bear?
In general, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
With rights come responsibility. People lose their right to be free when they abuse that right by hurting others. That's why we have prisons. When they drive drunk, they lose that right because they are abusing it. Gun ownership should be no different. To say that right should not be legislated or controlled is absurd and a corruption of the concept itself.
Agreed on responsibility. Drinking alcohol isn't a constitutional right. But anyone 21+ yeas of age is free to drink themselves drunk any time they want. That is them exercising their freedom to drink. It is when drinkers recklessly put others in danger, like drunk driving, that the law can and should get involved. A drunk driver would be like someone firing their gun recklessly into the air. Both should be prosecuted because they are abusing a freedom and may harm others.

To me regulating firearms is like thought crime. It's fear of inanimate objects and what *could* be done with those objects. Most firearms just sit in safes, dressers or closets. They are tools, they are objects. Sometimes the guns are taken out to go hunting, target shooting, and much more rarely are used for self defense. It's the extremely rare times when people choose to do harm with firearms that they can and should face legal action. Not before.
  #66  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:31 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
To me regulating firearms is like thought crime. It's fear of inanimate objects and what *could* be done with those objects. Most firearms just sit in safes, dressers or closets. They are tools, they are objects. Sometimes the guns are taken out to go hunting, target shooting, and much more rarely are used for self defense. It's the extremely rare times when people choose to do harm with firearms that they can and should face legal action. Not before.
Regulating firearms is not like (prosecuting) thought crime - it's doing one thing to get an indirect desired result. The goal is not to keep guns away from people who responsibly never take them out of their safes except to dust them, it's to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals, terrorists, lunatics, and dangerously irresponsible people - which in turn reduces the justified fear and trigger-happiness of the police. It's thing A causing thing B causing thing C.

I don't mind you having a gun because you're a crazed lunatic. I mind you having a gun because you having a gun means that crazed lunatics have guns.
  #67  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:58 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I don't mind you having a gun because you're a crazed lunatic.
Was there meant to be a "not" in this sentence?
  #68  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:28 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,009
Miller, I think the sentence is correct, but suffers from an inability to emphasize.

"I don't mind you having a gun because YOU are a crazed lunatic... I mind you having a gun because it means THAT (hypothetical) crazed lunatic also has a gun."
  #69  
Old 01-16-2020, 04:11 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Miller, I think the sentence is correct, but suffers from an inability to emphasize.

"I don't mind you having a gun because YOU are a crazed lunatic... I mind you having a gun because it means THAT (hypothetical) crazed lunatic also has a gun."
Bingo! (Give or take that in the second sentence I was calling out all crazed lunatics rather than THAT crazed lunatic.)

The english language sucks and should be replaced with something unambiguously unambiguous and significantly less usable.
  #70  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:10 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972
So you are against any and all laws that limit the arms a citizen can bear?
In general, yes.
So you think you should be free to keep and bear all weapons? See this list of Generally Prohibited Weapons under California Penal Code 16590 under categories 1) Knives and Edged Weapons; 2) Melee Weapons; 3) Firearms and Firearm Modifications; and 4) Ammunition and Explosives.
Quote:
The purpose of this list of generally prohibited weapons is to prevent people from carrying, selling, or creating instruments that are “short, easily concealed, and so weighted as to constitute effective and silent weapons of attack,” and “which are ordinarily used for criminal and unlawful purposes.”
Please explain why the general public should freely "keep and bear" belt-buckle knives and guns, throwing stars, brass knuckles, sawed-off "alley-sweeper" shotguns, full-auto combat rifles, explosive rounds, and/or backpack nukes, which I think quality under "concealed explosive substances."

Spoiler: If you accept that banning any weapons (such as those listed) for civilian use is legitimate, then you must accept that banning ANY weapon is legitimate. You have the right to keep and bear whatever arms are allowed. No nail-clippers on airplanes.
  #71  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
You seriously have no ability to understand why people would support any gun control legislation? The idea that maybe limiting a weapons ability to kill dozens of people in a few seconds might save a few lives is so completely beyond your understanding that it is a foreign concept altogether? The idea that the government can, and has, restricted access to items that can cause great harm to other citizens, is so fantastical to you that you have no ability whatsoever to understand, let alone agree with it? ..

He asked "Its the occasional news coverage that discusses how there may be gun control/confiscation could be in our future. Also how the lawmakers think or even can have discussions about it. (taking all guns from the citizens)"

That is a complete ban on all guns.

He isnt talking about, for example- a ban on selling "Assault weapons." Nor even a ban on owning them with confiscation like Beto and Booker and Harris (all of whom dropped out).

No, a full gun ban. And yes, he has a point, there are like 70 million adult, voting gun owners in this nation. There is NO fucking way they are gonna vote for a gun ban. Not even a ban on semi-autos (lots of deer rifles and duck guns are semi-auto) nor handguns.

But yes, there is room to discuss a ban on "Assault weapons."
  #72  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Perhaps you are thinking of your community where maybe a majority of people own guns. Nationally, only 30 percent of Americans own guns, and 43 percent of people live in a household where someone owns a gun.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/...-own-guns.aspx

But, there's basically zero chance that there is going to be any kind of mass round-up of guns in any of our lifetimes. What you're probably hearing is pro-gun zealots who want to instill fear in people who don't follow issues very closely -- something like,...
Serious Democratic candidates have proposed a door to door confiscation of all "Assault weapons.". And a ban on all semi-automatics. Bans on handguns have been passed (and SCOTUS overruled them.

So while no one is suggesting a ban on ALL guns, if you ban handguns, semi-auto weapons and "Assault weapons" (mostly covered under semi-autos anyway) that would be a ban on over half the guns in this country.

So yes, that would be a "mass round-up of guns". Even a confiscation of Assault weapons could ban 10-17 million guns, and that certainly qualifies as a "mass round-up of guns". And quite a few of the democratic candidates have gone along Betos ideas.

Thus, even if that's all that happens , a confiscation of "assault weapons"- yes that would certainly be a "mass round-up of guns". That isnt some weird right wing gun nuts conspiracy theory, it was openly proposed on stage and seconded by several others.
  #73  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:33 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
This has no basis in reality. This "news coverage" is propaganda, designed to get you to vote for politicians from one particular party.

That's all. It's bullshit for the gullible masses.


https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourk...eapons-1465738
Former Congressman Beto O'Rourke appeared to take his mandatory assault weapons buyback proposal a significant step further Wednesday, when he described a process whereby police officers would manually confiscate unlawful weapons.

Harris and Booker also want a confiscation of all assault weapons.

So, if three serious Dem candidates supported confiscation of all assault weapons, then it's not just some " bullshit for the gullible masses."

Warren and Sanders want a ban on sale and waffle on mandatory buy back. Biden wants a ban on sale and a voluntary buy back.
  #74  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
Yes, if someone is telling you that there are people who are going to confiscate your guns, they are lying to you to get you upset so that you will vote the way they want you to vote and/or send money to them.

It is as simple as that.
Beto , Harris and Booker are indeed "people who are going to confiscate your guns".

It's not just "lying to you to get you upset so that you will vote the way they want you to vote and/or send money to them. "

They were serious.
  #75  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:39 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
...

For the most part in the US, you can buy pistols, semi auto rifles, bolt action rifles and shotguns fairly easily. You can get a class III permit to buy silencers and machine guns, but a lot of people don't bother with that.

As for your question why would people disarm, you're assuming gun control and disarming are the same thing. Certain forms of gun control like limiting CCW permits, universal background checks and prohibiting guns from being sold to people with violent misdemeanors reduce gun homicide rates without really affecting gun ownership as a whole. .....

Class III guns are not allowed in several states.

Altho I have no problem with "universal background checks and prohibiting guns from being sold to people with violent misdemeanors" people with CCW permits are not the ones to be worried about. Felons cant get them, etc. Generally CCW holders dont commit violent crimes.
  #76  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:45 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
F... Right now, I can drive to Indiana, attend a "gun show", buy heavy weaponry with cash out of a suitcase, be tracked by zero paper work, and drive back to Chicago and sell them clandestinely with no way to be tracked. ...
Your purchase would be illegal, you cant buy heavy weapons, you cant take them across state lines, and you cant sell them legally.

You would violate several Federal laws and also state laws by doing so.


Since what you propose is totally, absolutely illegal, tell me why we need more laws to make it more illegal?

I mean, you can drive to Indiana, buy heavy drugs with cash out of a suitcase, be tracked by zero paper work, and drive back to Chicago and sell them clandestinely with no way to be tracked also.
  #77  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:57 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
So you think you should be free to keep and bear all weapons? See this list of Generally Prohibited Weapons under California Penal Code 16590 under categories 1) Knives and Edged Weapons; 2) Melee Weapons; 3) Firearms and Firearm Modifications; and 4) Ammunition and Explosives.

Please explain why the general public should freely "keep and bear" belt-buckle knives and guns, throwing stars, brass knuckles, sawed-off "alley-sweeper" shotguns, full-auto combat rifles, explosive rounds, and/or backpack nukes, which I think quality under "concealed explosive substances."

Spoiler: If you accept that banning any weapons (such as those listed) for civilian use is legitimate, then you must accept that banning ANY weapon is legitimate. You have the right to keep and bear whatever arms are allowed. No nail-clippers on airplanes.
sawed-off "alley-sweeper" shotguns, full-auto combat rifles, explosive rounds, and/or backpack nukes, Are all illegal under Federal law, and are not protected by the 2nd, according to SCOTUS.

belt-buckle knives, throwing stars, brass knuckles,- are actually fairly harmless and were never a major causer of homicides, and are a perfect example of Silly California laws.

I am in favor of pretty much most gun laws that would be legal under the 2nd ad as per Heller. Of course most are useless but maybe they would make people feel safer.

For example, a ban on sale of "assault weapons" wont reduce the violent crime rate, but if it makes people feel safer, why not?
  #78  
Old 01-17-2020, 08:51 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
In general, yes.
Are there any specific laws that infringe on a person's 2nd Amendment rights that you DO agree with?
  #79  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:06 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 391
It seems to me that the most logical course of action would be to get a list of the registered Democrats and confiscate their guns first. After the dramatic decrease in gun injuries and deaths as well as crimes in general, the other people will eagerly turn in their guns. If this gun confiscation is so good, the results will speak for themselves.
  #80  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:36 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Your purchase would be illegal, you cant buy heavy weapons, you cant take them across state lines, and you cant sell them legally.

You would violate several Federal laws and also state laws by doing so.


Since what you propose is totally, absolutely illegal, tell me why we need more laws to make it more illegal?

I mean, you can drive to Indiana, buy heavy drugs with cash out of a suitcase, be tracked by zero paper work, and drive back to Chicago and sell them clandestinely with no way to be tracked also.
And this is really the correct response and should be a sticky in these threads. I don't understand why otherwise intelligent people believe that banning guns will stop gun violence. Recreational drugs are banned, but I'll bet any poster here could go out and buy them tonight if they were so inclined.

And those are consumable. You have to keep getting more. When one gun will last not only your whole life, but you great-grandchildren's lives, any idea of stopping gun traffic is a fool's errand.
  #81  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:41 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
If this gun confiscation is so good, the results will speak for themselves.
You would think, but there are a whole lot of dumbasses in this country, who look at the results of UHC in other countries and gun control in other countries and just aggressively decide that those dozens of successes, reduced costs, expanded coverage, reduced murders, just don't apply in Americuh.

So, even if this idiotic proposal of Democrat gun confiscation worked to reduce murders and crime, Republicans would simply decide that it wouldn't work on non-Democrats, or that it only worked because it wasn't a complete ban, or it only worked because of whatever random bullshit they want to say, because it's never been about a logical course of action, it's just an argument to keep their boomsticks.
  #82  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:49 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
You almost got it. Saying I "would" take away your guns is different than saying I "want to" take away your guns. "Want to" implies that the taking away of your guns is the goal, when your ownership of guns is a non issue. It's not about you, has never been about you, and will never be about you. It's about that other person, the deranged person who wants a high capacity semi-automatic rifle so he can kill dozens of people. I "want to" make sure he can't get his hands on that rifle. If you can make THAT happen while you keep owning your own guns, I'm 100% OK with that.



I don't think that word means what you think it means. When I describe something as "impossible" it won't already have been done by a couple dozen countries.

It's only impossible if you refuse to do the things that makes it possible.

Right. And we both know that neither I nor anyone else can ensure that nobody else will steal my gun and use it to hurt people. So what you are saying is that they must be banned. I don't know why you need to dress it up any differently than that.

It is also pretty silly as I could use that argument to ban pretty much anything. Sure, you are responsible with you car and you obey all the traffic laws, but can you absolutely, with 100% precision, guarantee to me that nobody will steal your car and run down pedestrians? If not, then we'll just have to take your car.
  #83  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:50 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And this is really the correct response and should be a sticky in these threads. I don't understand why otherwise intelligent people believe that banning guns will stop gun violence.
Because it's been done before?

Quote:
Recreational drugs are banned, but I'll bet any poster here could go out and buy them tonight if they were so inclined.
If there was another country that managed to squash recreational drug use and now deals with a few hundred drug overdose deaths per year compared to our 70,000 per year, do you think we should maybe do what those guys are doing?

Maybe?

Or, should we declare that what worked for them won't work for us and 70,000 dead Americans a year is normal.
  #84  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:13 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Right. And we both know that neither I nor anyone else can ensure that nobody else will steal my gun and use it to hurt people. So what you are saying is that they must be banned. I don't know why you need to dress it up any differently than that.
Technically, I'm not concerned that your gun will be stolen. What I'm saying is that if you can get a gun, so can everyone else, including dangerous people.
Quote:
It is also pretty silly as I could use that argument to ban pretty much anything. Sure, you are responsible with you car and you obey all the traffic laws, but can you absolutely, with 100% precision, guarantee to me that nobody will steal your car and run down pedestrians? If not, then we'll just have to take your car.
You say that as if this silly argument isn't trotted out in every gun control discussion.

Just about any object you can think of can be used to kill (or try to kill) someone. However, the difference between those objects and guns is that those objects are not the most powerful handheld weapons ever designed by humans, and guns are. Which is why, whenever a person needs the most powerful handheld weapon they can get, they get a gun, military, police, whomever. And your dumbass brother in law (for a hypothetical example), who you wouldn't trust to feed a goldfish, can get a gun that's nearly as powerful a weapon as we (the country with the most powerful and well funded military in the world) give to our infantry. But, explain again why we should ban golf, because I can beat someone to death with a putter.
  #85  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:54 AM
Crafter_Man's Avatar
Crafter_Man is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
For the most part, Australians voluntarily gave their guns up
A wholesale gun ban in the U.S. would be an absolute disaster.

Before the ban, millions would stock up on everything they can get their hands on... AR-15s, ammo, propellant, gun parts, 30 round magazines, survival gear. You name it. This would be on top of what we already have. (I personally have over 50K rounds of .223 and .308, and would dig deep into my savings to buy more if a ban was coming.) And once the ban was put in place, very, very few gun owners will turn in their guns/ammo/whatever if possession were made illegal. The militias that currently exist would swell in size. The situation would become a powder keg.

Last edited by Crafter_Man; 01-17-2020 at 11:58 AM.
  #86  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:50 PM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
So you think you should be free to keep and bear all weapons? See this list of Generally Prohibited Weapons under California Penal Code 16590 under categories 1) Knives and Edged Weapons; 2) Melee Weapons; 3) Firearms and Firearm Modifications; and 4) Ammunition and Explosives.

Please explain why the general public should freely "keep and bear" belt-buckle knives and guns, throwing stars, brass knuckles, sawed-off "alley-sweeper" shotguns, full-auto combat rifles, explosive rounds, and/or backpack nukes, which I think quality under "concealed explosive substances."

Spoiler: If you accept that banning any weapons (such as those listed) for civilian use is legitimate, then you must accept that banning ANY weapon is legitimate. You have the right to keep and bear whatever arms are allowed. No nail-clippers on airplanes.
I'm not in favor of banning any inanimate/inert objects, like knives, throwing stars, brass knuckles, and firearms. You could just as easily be harmed by a pencil or a saw blade. Dangers exist, bad people and bad actions are rare but do exist, you're going to have to get used to that.

That said, volatile things like chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, or bombs are not safe to store and have around innocent people, they can indiscriminately explode or contaminate the environment. So yes they should continue to be banned.

Now you'd probably say "Well firearms can go off and hurt people." Yes, but not on their own, only when handled irresponsibly. Just like a drill, a lawnmower, or a vehicle, they are tools, they are machines.

We are adults, we are citizens, and we should be trusted by default, especially with Constitutional rights. Some say that the writers of the Constitution never envisioned modern firearms, but they also never imagined citizens being able to post a message that would instantly be seen around the world either.
  #87  
Old 01-17-2020, 01:16 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
You would think, but there are a whole lot of dumbasses in this country, who look at the results of UHC in other countries and gun control in other countries and just aggressively decide that those dozens of successes, reduced costs, expanded coverage, reduced murders, just don't apply in Americuh.

So, even if this idiotic proposal of Democrat gun confiscation worked to reduce murders and crime, Republicans would simply decide that it wouldn't work on non-Democrats, or that it only worked because it wasn't a complete ban, or it only worked because of whatever random bullshit they want to say, because it's never been about a logical course of action, it's just an argument to keep their boomsticks.
It's so idiotic that Democrats are already doing it. In Democrat strangleholds, the gun laws are so onerous that it is more or less a de facto gun ban. The people affected by these laws are mostly Democrats. The results speak for themselves in Chicago, Detroit, DC, and Baltimore. I merely proposed the idea in a direct manner.
  #88  
Old 01-17-2020, 02:36 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
A wholesale gun ban in the U.S. would be an absolute disaster.

Before the ban, millions would stock up on everything they can get their hands on... AR-15s, ammo, propellant, gun parts, 30 round magazines, survival gear. You name it. This would be on top of what we already have. (I personally have over 50K rounds of .223 and .308, and would dig deep into my savings to buy more if a ban was coming.) And once the ban was put in place, very, very few gun owners will turn in their guns/ammo/whatever if possession were made illegal. The militias that currently exist would swell in size. The situation would become a powder keg.
What is the difference between these "militias" and terrorist organizations? Both use guns, violence, and the threat of violence if they don't get their way to push their misguided agenda.
  #89  
Old 01-17-2020, 02:54 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
The results speak for themselves in Chicago, Detroit, DC, and Baltimore.
And New York, which has a violent crime rate about 1/3rd that of Milwaukee. What are gun laws like in Wisconsin? 1/4th the violent crime rate of St Louis, what are gun laws like in Missouri? Cleveland, Memphis, Mobile? All have a violent crime rate way higher than NYC, all are in states with little gun regulation.

Which, by the way, isn't an argument in favor of the local city or state gun regulations. They don't appear to work particularly well, there is no evidence that they work well, there's no reason to believe they would be effective.

Unlike nationwide gun regulations, which have a long history of at least reasonably effective implementation, even in our own country.
  #90  
Old 01-17-2020, 05:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
And New York, which has a violent crime rate about 1/3rd that of Milwaukee. What are gun laws like in Wisconsin? 1/4th the violent crime rate of St Louis, what are gun laws like in Missouri? Cleveland, Memphis, Mobile? All have a violent crime rate way higher than NYC, all are in states with little gun regulation.
....
Detroit, with a state rating of C from Gifford has the 2nd highest violent crime rate.

Baltimore with a rating of A has the 3rd highest violent crime rate.

Stockton, rating A+ (Ca has the most restrictive gun laws) is 8th. Oakland is 11th and San Bernardino 12th.

So there appears to be zero correlation between restrictive gun laws and violent crime rates.
  #91  
Old 01-17-2020, 05:49 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
What is the difference between these "militias" and terrorist organizations? Both use guns, violence, and the threat of violence if they don't get their way to push their misguided agenda.
The difference is that you wouldn't be talking about a negligible number of yahoos, you'd be talking about millions or even tens of millions of people. Enough that "terrorism" would be an insufficient description, with "civil insurrection" a closer fit.
  #92  
Old 01-17-2020, 05:56 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Detroit, with a state rating of C from Gifford has the 2nd highest violent crime rate.

Baltimore with a rating of A has the 3rd highest violent crime rate.

Stockton, rating A+ (Ca has the most restrictive gun laws) is 8th. Oakland is 11th and San Bernardino 12th.

So there appears to be zero correlation between restrictive gun laws and violent crime rates.
Given that it's well known that people can carry guns into restrictive places from the gun-happy areas next-door, I don't see why anybody would think that this is a meaningful argument.
  #93  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:48 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Given that it's well known that people can carry guns into restrictive places from the gun-happy areas next-door, I don't see why anybody would think that this is a meaningful argument.
Then you could argue that cities with high crime rates in areas with lots of guns are caused by people coming from out of state.

But in general, those cities don't have a big problem with crime coming from Nevada.

Even national borders are porous , so that means all gun control laws are useless, by that logic.
  #94  
Old 01-18-2020, 12:07 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
I'm not in favor of banning any inanimate/inert objects, like knives, throwing stars, brass knuckles, and firearms. You could just as easily be harmed by a pencil or a saw blade. Dangers exist, bad people and bad actions are rare but do exist, you're going to have to get used to that.
And my grandchildren are just "going to have to get used to" bulletproof bookbags, weapons drills at schools, and learning that ANYONE on the street could be armed and ready to kill them. That's your world. Need I tell you how much it sucks?

Do you think you'll find any legal support for overthrowing bans on concealed and spring-loaded knives, belt-buckle guns and knives, zip-guns, and brass knuckles?

Quote:
That said, volatile things like chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, or bombs are not safe to store and have around innocent people, they can indiscriminately explode or contaminate the environment. So yes they should continue to be banned.
So only items that could "indiscriminately explode or contaminate the environment" on their own can be banned? That excludes well-engineered portable nukes but includes 50-cal belts left on a heater. But you have just admitted that some "arms" bans are legitimate. Where's the bright line on legitimacy? Is it just personal preference? "Ban bombs but not my grenades!" Is that it?

Quote:
Now you'd probably say...
I say nothing about misused weapons. I say that when more weapons exist, they're used more. Of firearms deaths in the US, twice as many are suicides as homicides. Reduce available firearms and guys will have to find other ways to snuff it.

Quote:
We are adults, we are citizens, and we should be trusted by default, especially with Constitutional rights.
For most of US history, the 2nd was not interpreted as an individual right. We have the right as Americans to bear arms in defense of the nation as part of a well-regulated militia. That's the intent. But the effect? You have the right to kill or be killed. You have no right to life once you're a "person born". And generally, you have whatever rights you're allowed. Don't be a Black man with a cellphone in your back pocket.
  #95  
Old 01-18-2020, 01:50 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Given that it's well known that people can carry guns into restrictive places from the gun-happy areas next-door, I don't see why anybody would think that this is a meaningful argument.
This is a excellent argument... of why gun control laws are useless.
  #96  
Old 01-18-2020, 03:05 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
The difference is that you wouldn't be talking about a negligible number of yahoos, you'd be talking about millions or even tens of millions of people. Enough that "terrorism" would be an insufficient description, with "civil insurrection" a closer fit.
On the one hand, gun-rights advocates are telling us that they can be trusted with deadly weapons because they're so law-abiding and reasonable. On the other hand, they're also telling us that if legal measures were ever put in place to prohibit ownership of said weapons, they wouldn't follow the law-abiding and reasonable path of challenging those laws constitutionally while obeying them. Nope, they'd just go to town on stockpiling illegal weapons and knowingly turn society into a "powder keg" or "civil insurrection".

This is classic abuser talk. "You should trust me and do what I say because I'm a responsible and trustworthy guy, but if you do something I don't like then I'll become completely dangerous and irresponsible and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT FOR DRIVING ME TO IT. "

Nope. It may be true that gun-rights advocates are responsible rational people with respect for the law. Or it may be true that gun-rights advocates are potential sociopathic loose cannons who would destroy civil society as violent outlaws rather than submit to a legal ban on guns. But it's not possible for both those statements to be true.

And trying to pretend that gun opponents would be the ones to blame for somehow magically transmogrifying the former into the latter by instituting a legal gun ban is just a transparent evasion of responsibility.
  #97  
Old 01-18-2020, 07:47 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
And my grandchildren are just "going to have to get used to" bulletproof bookbags, weapons drills at schools, and learning that ANYONE on the street could be armed and ready to kill them. That's your world. Need I tell you how much it sucks?

I say nothing about misused weapons. I say that when more weapons exist, they're used more. Of firearms deaths in the US, twice as many are suicides as homicides. Reduce available firearms and guys will have to find other ways to snuff it.
But shootings have not tracked the broad number or availability of guns. Mass shootings, especially in schools, have essentially become a fad since Columbine, fed by publicity and the decay of of social norms. Guns didn't cause this problem, the meme that it's somehow "cool" for a disaffected loner to "go out in a blaze of glory" did.


Quote:
For most of US history, the 2nd was not interpreted as an individual right. We have the right as Americans to bear arms in defense of the nation as part of a well-regulated militia. That's the intent.
The historical record contradicts you. Repeated court rulings and legal opinions for over a century after the passage of the Second affirmed it was an individual right. The collectivist revisionism only dates from around the beginning of the twentieth century; the post-Heller viewpoint is a restoration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
On the one hand, gun-rights advocates are telling us that they can be trusted with deadly weapons because they're so law-abiding and reasonable. On the other hand, they're also telling us that if legal measures were ever put in place to prohibit ownership of said weapons, they wouldn't follow the law-abiding and reasonable path of challenging those laws constitutionally while obeying them. Nope, they'd just go to town on stockpiling illegal weapons and knowingly turn society into a "powder keg" or "civil insurrection".

This is classic abuser talk. "You should trust me and do what I say because I'm a responsible and trustworthy guy, but if you do something I don't like then I'll become completely dangerous and irresponsible and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT FOR DRIVING ME TO IT. "

Nope. It may be true that gun-rights advocates are responsible rational people with respect for the law. Or it may be true that gun-rights advocates are potential sociopathic loose cannons who would destroy civil society as violent outlaws rather than submit to a legal ban on guns. But it's not possible for both those statements to be true.

And trying to pretend that gun opponents would be the ones to blame for somehow magically transmogrifying the former into the latter by instituting a legal gun ban is just a transparent evasion of responsibility.
Would you be as complacent about a law establishing official government censorship boards if somehow a duly elected legislature and governor signed that into law? The whole point of a Bill of Rights is to declare that some things just are not on the table: free speech, freedom of conscience, peaceful assembly- and yes, self-defense. I would HOPE people would rebel against a law passed in blatant violation of what are held to be fundamental freedoms. Or do you take the position that anything- anything whatsoever- that a legislature passes should be obeyed without question?
  #98  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:11 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Lol the "decay of social norms". Yep, things were better in the 50s when women stayed in the kitchen, blacks bad their own drinking fountains, and we all did the Christian thing and ignored it when priests diddled children.

Or is there some other kind of "social norm" you are referring to?
  #99  
Old 01-18-2020, 12:45 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
On the one hand, gun-rights advocates are telling us that they can be trusted with deadly weapons because they're so law-abiding and reasonable. On the other hand, they're also telling us that if legal measures were ever put in place to prohibit ownership of said weapons, they wouldn't follow the law-abiding and reasonable path of challenging those laws constitutionally while obeying them. Nope, they'd just go to town on stockpiling illegal weapons and knowingly turn society into a "powder keg" or "civil insurrection".
...

Nope. It may be true that gun-rights advocates are responsible rational people with respect for the law. Or it may be true that gun-rights advocates are potential sociopathic loose cannons who would destroy civil society as violent outlaws rather than submit to a legal ban on guns. But it's not possible for both those statements to be true.

And trying to pretend that gun opponents would be the ones to blame for somehow magically transmogrifying the former into the latter by instituting a legal gun ban is just a transparent evasion of responsibility.

Well, Civil Disobedience is a good thing for bad laws.

However, here's the point- in any group, there are a certain amount of nutjobs and sociopaths. There are like 70 Million gun owners, so while no doubt most will hand over their weapons, and some will practice Civil Disobedience, a very few will get violent. I dont see any large group of gun owners saying they will start shooting.

Ban muscle cars and you can expect the same thing. Or Bibles. Or start burning books, because they repealed the First Ad by a group of a Theocratic reactionaries.And of course- a "legal ban"? Since the Constitution makes it clear no far reaching gun ban is legal? Could we not expect some unrest and violence if the government started burning every book that wasnt the King James Bible?

Last edited by DrDeth; 01-18-2020 at 12:49 PM.
  #100  
Old 01-18-2020, 04:16 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Lol the "decay of social norms". Yep, things were better in the 50s when women stayed in the kitchen, blacks bad their own drinking fountains, and we all did the Christian thing and ignored it when priests diddled children.

Or is there some other kind of "social norm" you are referring to?
The one where high school students would leave hunting shotguns and deer rifles in the gun rack of their car, parked in the school parking lot. Or the high schools even had gun clubs as an extracurricular activity. Or maybe the one where sociopath narcissistic fuckers like Charles Starkweather got the electric chair seventeen months after committing a murder spree.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017