How do you justify gun control advocacy?

[bengangmo]

To my mind also, while the “spree” shootings bring the issue into rather stark relief, with or without them I still be lieve in great gun control.

The amount of accidental shootings, gun murders, firearms related robberies etc are already bad enough that more and better control is needed.

Sure, as already mentioned, its going to take 10, 20 or even 30 years to make a dent in the number of guns circulating, but I feel it needs to be done.

And I am not for a total ban, just for registration of all guns, and all owners in a central database. With handguns getting special attention.

[Ethilrist]

@Fiveyearlurker

Why can’t some guns be banned and others not? Serious question from someone who doesn’t know much about guns. Are there not characteristics inherent in each and every weapon that could be quantified and deemed legal or illegal? Similar to cars.

I’m very moderate on the issue of gun control. I have no problem with responsible adults having reasonable weapons. But, when I try to have a serious conversation about how we can come to a mutually agreed upon definition “reasonable”, I’m told that it there is no possible way to differentiate a single shot rifle that holds a few rounds, from a high capacity, multi-shot per second weapon. Any discussion of limiting the legality of different weapons seems to devolve into fear that this is just an attempt to limit the legality of all weapons. I swear to god, I just want to have some definition of a reasonable weapon that makes everyone happy, and this is not an attempt to get your gun from your cold, dead hands!

But if it ends up being all or nothing, well, put me down for nothing.

It depends on why you’re banning guns. If you really just hate scary-looking guns, then ban all the scary-looking guns. People can still buy the Hello Kitty AR-15. If you want to ban guns that could be used to kill a bunch of people in a few minutes, then you’ve got a problem, because any semiautomatic handgun can be used for that. So also can, say, half a dozen revolvers, if automatics get banned and you don’t want to deal with speedloaders. If you say, okay, fine, all handguns get banned, then people can still use rifles.

[Oakminster]

@bengangmo

And I am not for a total ban, just for registration of all guns, and all owners in a central database. With handguns getting special attention.

What the fuck would that accomplish? Identifying the shooter usually isn’t much of a problem in an incident like the recent tragedy. Knowing where he got the gun won’t save any lives.

[panaccione]

This is what I am saying. If you can recognize this very real problem we have in this country, why is it so hard to take the leap that you would say “I believe all guns should be banned?”

[Oakminster]

@Scotty Mo

This is what I am saying. If you can recognize this very real problem we have in this country, why is it so hard to take the leap that you would say “I believe all guns should be banned?”

Because that is a moronic position. Millions of gunowners never harm anyone. They have a constitutional right to own their weapons. Violating their rights to make you feel safer is not a valid option.

[Cazzle]

I justify gun control advocacy by pointing at my own country. 13 spree shootings in 18 years, then the introduction of stronger gun laws, filled by 0 spree shootings in 16 years (there was one, but with two fatalities, it fell short of the four needed to be counted).

It worked for us. Guns aren’t banned, people still own them but with tight restrictions. It has has the intended effect, as 16 years without a mass shooting will testify.

[ataraxy22]

@Oakminster

:rolleyes:

So guns are weapons of mass destruction now? Congratulations for posting the stupidest thing I’ve seen in all the gun threads recently.

:rolleyes:

Killing 26 innocent people in the span of a few minutes counts as a weapon of mass destruction in my book!

[Voyager]

@Oakminster

What the fuck would that accomplish? Identifying the shooter usually isn’t much of a problem in an incident like the recent tragedy. Knowing where he got the gun won’t save any lives.

Because most gun deaths don’t involve the suicide of the shooter, but involve things like gang members driving by and blowing up someone they think of a rival. And innocent people wind up getting shot. Knowing where all the guns are would be real useful in cutting down on that kind of crime. And others.

Not this massacre. Those guns came from a collector who no doubt thought that guns in her house would protect her. Didn’t work out too well for the mother, did it?

[panaccione]

Thank you, Eliahna. It may be moronic to think that that position has any chance of being successful in the U.S., but I think it is a far cry from the actual position itself being moronic. In fact, I think it’s actually quite the opposite.

[Oakminster]

@ataraxy22

Killing 26 innocent people in the span of a few minutes counts as a weapon of mass destruction in my book!

By that logic, George W. Bush was right to invade Iraq, because they had plenty of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, we should invade every country on Earth, because every military on the planet has guns.

Or maybe, as I originally thought, it is fucking stupid to refer to guns as weapons of mass destruction.

[panaccione]

@Oakminster

By that logic, George W. Bush was right to invade Iraq, because they had plenty of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, we should invade every country on Earth, because every military on the planet has guns.

Or maybe, as I originally thought, it is fucking stupid to refer to guns as weapons of mass destruction.

Well if you want to get into semantics I wouldn’t go beyond calling them “toys.” Violent and dangerous toys indeed. Or is that stupid too?

[ITR_champion]

@Ethilrist

All of these ignore completely the point that the vast majority of guns are never going to be used to commit a crime,

And why on earth is that relevant? The vast majority of crack cocaine never kills anybody. Nonetheless crack cocaine is illegal, because it has the potential to kill people. If you give the issue a moment’s thought, you can surely come up with plenty of similar examples. The government often bans things that, in the vast majority of cases, never harm anybody, simply because there’s a minority of cases where there is harm.

[ITR_champion]

@bengangmo

The amount of accidental shootings, gun murders, firearms related robberies etc are already bad enough that more and better control is needed.

Sure, as already mentioned, its going to take 10, 20 or even 30 years to make a dent in the number of guns circulating, but I feel it needs to be done.

Well said, and I fully agree. It’s true that given the huge number of guns in the United States right now, no law could make any significant dent in the fact that guns are easily available to any criminal who wants them right away. However, intelligent policy could make life better for Americans down the road if we start now. The situation is somewhat similar to policy on global warming.

[Oakminster]

@ITR_champion

The government often bans things that, in the vast majority of cases, never harm anybody, simply because there’s a minority of cases where there is harm.

The Second Amendment says they can’t ban guns.

[hogarth]

@Fiveyearlurker

Why can’t some guns be banned and others not?

In Canada, it’s certainly more difficult to get a handgun than it is to get a rifle.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Ethilrist

It depends on why you’re banning guns. If you really just hate scary-looking guns, then ban all the scary-looking guns. People can still buy the Hello Kitty AR-15. If you want to ban guns that could be used to kill a bunch of people in a few minutes, then you’ve got a problem, because any semiautomatic handgun can be used for that. So also can, say, half a dozen revolvers, if automatics get banned and you don’t want to deal with speedloaders. If you say, okay, fine, all handguns get banned, then people can still use rifles.

The “scary looking guns” thing is condescending. Assume for the moment that I’m sincere in my questions, and intents which would be to limit weapons that are available to be purchased legally based upon identifiable functional characteristics. Cars have a federal industry standard that must be met to a minimal degree to be sold in this country. I don’t see that guns are somehow so much more complicated as machines that they can’t be treated similarly. The car guidelines are quite long and quite specific; this is what I’m looking for for guns, not banning “scary looking guns”.

I want to be in favor of rational gun control, but I need to see if there really is any middle ground. I’m seeking honest information about where that middle ground could be.

[iiandyiiii]

As to what to ban, I think it’s instructive to look at what bans have been effective and what have not. First, with guns- full-auto capable weapons (that is, guns that can shoot multiple bullets with one pull of the trigger) were banned in the 80s (IIRC), and I think that this ban can be thought of as successful, because the vast majority of these mass shootings don’t involve full-auto capable weapons.

Why was this ban successful (largely)? I think the answer is pretty easy- because there weren’t that many full-auto weapons in private hands to begin with.

I think we can infer that banning things that are not common can be successful.

But banning things that are common, or easy to produce, has had an awful track record in America- prohibition of alcohol and then drugs are the easiest examples. Basically, there’s not much point to banning something that’s both readily available and has a high demand. A ban on semi-automatic weapons (weapons that shoot one bullet with one pull of the trigger), a category which includes most handguns and a very large percentage of long guns (rifles and shotguns), would probably be largely unsuccessful, because these weapons are extremely common.

A ban on high capacity magazines might fall in the middle ground- I don’t know how many of these magazines are out there. If there are millions and millions, or if they’re very easy to manufacture (for example, if someone can take two 10 round magazines and combine them in their garage with basic tools into a 20 round magazine- and I don’t know if this is true), then such a ban would probably be ineffective. If not, then perhaps it would be effective. It’s certainly worth looking into.

Without a way to get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns already in America, I think it’s pretty clear that a blanket ban, or a more limited ban on specific types of weapons (if they’re already common), would do little if any to reduce mass shootings (and probably gun crime in general).

I don’t know what the answer is. Perhaps an armed cop or two should be on duty in every school when class is in session. Perhaps we should even have a new uniformed service, specifically trained and dedicated to protecting schools. Some have suggested arming the teachers- I’m pretty skeptical, but some community in a state like Texas is bound to try this sooner or later.

Hopefully someone smart has some good ideas.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Thanks. I think that the issue of the millions of guns already out there is the one issue that gives me pause about how effective rational gun control would be. At least in the short term. But, looking forward, it has to be true that if millions of these weapons are out there, that quite a few of these weapons are manufactured every year, and banning them would prevent new weapons (again, not all, just the ones that we can agree are not meeting minimal safety standards) from existing in the first place.

So, effects might not be seen immediately, but somewhere down the road, these weapons would become more scarce. Hopefully stockpiled by responsible people. And, not be available.

[Der_Trihs]

@iiandyiiii

Without a way to get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns already in America, I think it’s pretty clear that a blanket ban, or a more limited ban on specific types of weapons (if they’re already common), would do little if any to reduce mass shootings (and probably gun crime in general).

Of course we can get rid of them; confiscate them or buy them, melt them down. It would take a long time but they aren’t the One Ring, we don’t have to find Mount Doom to toss them in.

[tagos]

@Randvek

This is the real problem. If we had a magic wish and could make all “bad” guns disappear as we implemented gun control, it would work, and it would work well. The pesky problem is the 250+ million guns already in America. That’s a big downside to having a history built on violence.

Trying to ban guns in the USA is futile at this point. At best you can maybe hope to keep them out of the hands of obvious lunatics but when these lunatics have heavily armed lunatic mothers tooling up for the collapse of civilisation like this kid did then that’s not an easy task either.

This seems good reading.

I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother

I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise—in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population.

With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill—Rikers Island, the LA County Jail and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011.

No one wants to send a 13-year-old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.”

I agree that something must be done. It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That’s the only way our nation can ever truly heal.

If you can’t put the gun genie back in the bottle (and I accept this is true for the USA) at least try and help people before they flip out so terminally.