How do you justify gun control advocacy?

[Blaster_Master]

@Scotty Mo

Upon the wake of this devastating news in CT, I’ve found myself seriously re-evaluating my view on gun control in this country. I’ve always considered myself a deep-hearted liberal, but I was somewhat ambigous about this issue. It didn’t affect me personally because I don’t have a gun so I can’t say I took much time to learn about them.

I do not own any guns myself, but I’ve been around them for much of my life. Even many of my more liberal friends own guns themselves but still argue for tighter gun controls. Personally, I’m a libertarian, and so I have issue with bannings of any sort; but, particularly in the wake of recent events, I feel that discussion of gun control is premature.

I’ll be the first to say that this issue runs deeper than simply gun control. Banning guns at this point in our society would be practically impossible. Some of the more underlying problems in our society that need focused on include income inequality, our justice system, the wars on multiple fronts we continually undertake like the drug wars and our actions in the middle east, and our lack of concern for healthcare and education. These should be our priorities. If these issues were better handled you would see less violence in our society.

This, I think, is where our real issues lie. Yes, guns in the hands of young impressionable kids or mentally unstable individuals probably exacerbates the situation, but gun bans attack the symptoms of the problems rather than the causes. Let’s say we ban “assualt weapons” and hand guns and Lanza really couldn’t get access to them; against rooms full of unarmed children, any gun could have produced similar results. Even if we could have kept all guns out of his hands, considering that he’d apparently gone in with the intention to kill many and commit suicide, he could have gotten similar results with a bomb.

The point is, I don’t think we can say that any gun laws really could have done any more here than possible reduce the total fatalies somewhat. I’d rather see us spend our resources on helping to identify and treat mental illness and the other issues in our society that drives people like him to commit murder in the first place.

Now that may seem self-evident but unfortunately as we all know that is not the case in america. In fact, I’m almost suprised to see the amount of outrage that I do. I read about what goes on in palestine, syria, and many other countries around the world where children are being slaughtered. This happens everyday and people ignore it, but as soon as it involves american children it is front page news.

This part frustrates me the most. Probably as many or more people die in senseless criminal acts throughout this country, but we don’t see gun debates sparked every time there’s a triple homicide in DC. We only see these debates when some lunatic goes and shoots up a school, a cinema, a mall, a church… whatever. Yes, guns are a common thread in all of those, but they’re a common thread in countless other deaths. I’m deeply saddened by those deaths, but I am equally saddened by so many other deaths that go unheralded.

Personally, I’ve used my knowledge of what happened to the jews during the holocaust to sympathize with gun enthusiasists. It is my understanding that jews were stripped of their arms before the arrests began to take place. Now, I understand that the idea of a violent overthrow of a tyrannical government is ridiculous. However, I deeply distrust those who are in power and although I know that I could not successfully win that fight were it ever to occur, I like to think that I could at least put up a fight.

As I understand, the idea isn’t that average people with rifles could possibly win in a fight against our military, that would never happen. A big part of what makes it a difficult proposal is the same reason we had loses to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan for so long after their militaries were defeated. Moreso, those in the military may not necessarily be as loyal to the government when asked to turn on their fellow citizens, especially if they’re fighting back.

Sure, it’s not the same sort of situation as when the constitution was drafted, and it may not have the deterent effect that it used to, but I do think it still has some value. Whether that value is worth the cost or not is a bit difficult to quantify.

[Belowjob2.0]

Borrowing another part of the driver licensing / vehicle operation idea: mandatory gun insurance.

That is to say, every gun owner/purchaser must posses an up to date insurance policy for every gun they own. Possession without insurance punished by confiscation, and fines.

[RTFirefly]

@Ethilrist

Until, twelve minutes later, somebody broke into a house and stole the “good” guns. Unless you’re also positing a banner year for gun safe sales.

Depends on your definition of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ One of the Atlantic Monthly’s bloggers proposed that we put the following limit on new guns: that they only hold six bullets, and they don’t take ammo clips: you have to load more bullets individually.

The idea is that this should more than suffice for hunting or self-defense, but it would really put a crimp in mass murder.

So if the ‘good’ guns were like that, some crazy person stealing someone’s ‘good’ guns wouldn’t make much difference in terms of my safety.

[Oakminster]

@Belowjob2.0

Borrowing another part of the driver licensing / vehicle operation idea: mandatory gun insurance.

That is to say, every gun owner/purchaser must posses an up to date insurance policy for every gun they own. Possession without insurance punished by confiscation, and fines.

What the fuck is that supposed to accomplish? Other than harassing lawful gun owners? It isn’t going to save lives, which is allegedly the reason all the gun grabbers are coming out of the woodwork recently.

[Implicit]

@Euphonious_Polemic

The solution? There isn’t one. Learn to live with an increasing number of mentally ill people with free and easy access to military grade weapons. Learn to live with random slaughters in your schools, malls and workplaces. Barricade yourselves behind metal detectors. Give more guns to regular people “for protection” - guns that will be used for suicides, murder of family members or for accidental shootings by 5 year olds.

This is an honest and realistic description of the situation.

After every mass shooting in recent memory there are suggestions to arm teachers or add armed guards or statements like “a few dead kids are the price we pay for freedom”. Until that attitude changes, there will be no progress on gun control. The US isn’t even close to that point yet.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

Depends on your definition of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ One of the Atlantic Monthly’s bloggers proposed that we put the following limit on new guns: that they only hold six bullets, and they don’t take ammo clips: you have to load more bullets individually.

The idea is that this should more than suffice for hunting or self-defense, but it would really put a crimp in mass murder.

So if the ‘good’ guns were like that, some crazy person stealing someone’s ‘good’ guns wouldn’t make much difference in terms of my safety.

Do you mean loading bullets individually, like a revolver?

Do you know what a speed loader is?

I am guessing “no.” Surprise me.

[Ethilrist]

@Bricker

Do you mean loading bullets individually, like a revolver?

Do you know what a speed loader is?

I am guessing “no.” Surprise me.

There were earlier versions of the revolver which required you to remove spend casings & reload chambers one at a time: drop out the casing, insert new cartridge, rotate chamber, repeat. The .454 Casull was of this type, so no speedloader would work.

The problem with that theory is that it has the hidden first step of “first, make ALL THE GUNS EXCEPT THIS TYPE GO AWAY.”

[Ethilrist]

@Fiveyearlurker

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.

Given that the federal industry standard for cars is to ensure that cars are manufactured to reliable specs for safety and the ability to perform as desired, how would you propose to impose similar standards for guns so they couldn’t be used to kill people? Rubber bullets?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Ethilrist

Given that the federal industry standard for cars is to ensure that cars are manufactured to reliable specs for safety and the ability to perform as desired, how would you propose to impose similar standards for guns so they couldn’t be used to kill people? Rubber bullets?

Some folks are not thinking through their opponents’ arguments fully. “Perform as desired” here has a pretty clear implication:

-As desired: effective for home defense.
-Not as desired: effective for mass murder.

A gun that’s effective at home defense would, of course, be effective at small-scale murder. But are you seriously suggesting that there’s no possible way to engineer a firearm such that it could, for example, fire no more than six shots before requiring a slow, fine-motor-skill act of reloading? Could we not set up guns with a tamper-proof box that reads signals from large, bulky jammer devices, and then issue those jammers to schools, malls, airports, etc.? Could we not limit gun possession to, say, two guns per person, with any additional guns to be kept locked up in well regulated gun clubs? Could we not devote the astonishing technical skills of American engineering to making mass murder not quite so goddamned convenient?

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

Do you mean loading bullets individually, like a revolver?

Do you know what a speed loader is?

I am guessing “no.” Surprise me.

I doubt that the “6 bullet” limit idea is politically feasible, and I’m not confident that it would do much in actually making it hard to get higher capacity guns, but reloading a revolver with a speedloader is not as easy or as quick as putting a new clip in a semi-auto pistol (though it can get close to as quick with an expert). If the only guns available to mass shooters were revolvers and long guns, it’s reasonable to assume that body counts would be smaller.

[Boyo_Jim]

@MsWhatsit

…
That said, Canada has a lot of guns and not nearly as much gun violence as we do, so if someone could explain that difference…

I dunno why we stand for it, but Canada is just filled with Canadians.

[Belowjob2.0]

@Oakminster

What the fuck is that supposed to accomplish? Other than harassing lawful gun owners? It isn’t going to save lives, which is allegedly the reason all the gun grabbers are coming out of the woodwork recently.

Ameliorates some of the damage caused by guns to society as a whole. Accidents. Thefts that result in gun crime.

So you never cause an accident with your car. You still have to have insurance.

[Oakminster]

@BobLibDem

Then Heller can get the overturning that it so richly deserves and gun nuts can stop pretending that it says what it doesn’t.

You do, of course, appreciate the irony of parroting the same twisted logic of the anti-abortion position on Roe v. Wade to suit your agenda, right?

[Bricker]

@Ethilrist

There were earlier versions of the revolver which required you to remove spend casings & reload chambers one at a time: drop out the casing, insert new cartridge, rotate chamber, repeat. The .454 Casull was of this type, so no speedloader would work.

The problem with that theory is that it has the hidden first step of “first, make ALL THE GUNS EXCEPT THIS TYPE GO AWAY.”

Yes. I own a Ruger Super Blackhawk.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Some folks are not thinking through their opponents’ arguments fully. “Perform as desired” here has a pretty clear implication:

-As desired: effective for home defense.
-Not as desired: effective for mass murder.

A gun that’s effective at home defense would, of course, be effective at small-scale murder. But are you seriously suggesting that there’s no possible way to engineer a firearm such that it could, for example, fire no more than six shots before requiring a slow, fine-motor-skill act of reloading? Could we not set up guns with a tamper-proof box that reads signals from large, bulky jammer devices, and then issue those jammers to schools, malls, airports, etc.? Could we not limit gun possession to, say, two guns per person, with any additional guns to be kept locked up in well regulated gun clubs? Could we not devote the astonishing technical skills of American engineering to making mass murder not quite so goddamned convenient?

It’s not that he isn’t thinking it’s through. It’s intentionally trying to be obtuse. He knows exactly what I meant, but is pretending not to in order to obfuscate the fact that it is obviously possible to do what you outline above.

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Some folks are not thinking through their opponents’ arguments fully. “Perform as desired” here has a pretty clear implication:

-As desired: effective for home defense.
-Not as desired: effective for mass murder.

A gun that’s effective at home defense would, of course, be effective at small-scale murder. But are you seriously suggesting that there’s no possible way to engineer a firearm such that it could, for example, fire no more than six shots before requiring a slow, fine-motor-skill act of reloading? Could we not set up guns with a tamper-proof box that reads signals from large, bulky jammer devices, and then issue those jammers to schools, malls, airports, etc.? Could we not limit gun possession to, say, two guns per person, with any additional guns to be kept locked up in well regulated gun clubs? Could we not devote the astonishing technical skills of American engineering to making mass murder not quite so goddamned convenient?

Can you explain to me, please, how a signal from a large, bulky jammer device could not be replicated by a small, unbulky device?

Also: just to serve as an additional data point for a theory I am developing, what experience do you personally have with firearms?

[Bricker]

@Fiveyearlurker

It’s not that he isn’t thinking it’s through. It’s intentionally trying to be obtuse. He knows exactly what I meant, but is pretending not to in order to obfuscate the fact that it is obviously possible to do what you outline above.

Oh, good. Since it’s obviously possible, can you answer the question I posed above?

[sisu]

@Lochdale

It’s a lot harder to get a gun onto an island than into the US. A,so I think it gets tricky when you compare a homogenous society like Japan with countries like the US.

Bullshit, it is silly easy to get guns into a country like Australia or Japan. If a crim wants one he/she can get one, it’s just not that hard.

[OldGuy]

I wish everyone who thinks that nothing can be done about gun control (and note I said control not banning) would familiarize themselves with the case of Australia which enacted strict laws in 1996 and greatly reduced gun violence. Eliahna mentioned this back in post 26, but it’s been largely ignored here (and in the US in general).

Here’s another cite: Australia enacted strict gun control laws after a horrific mass shooting in 1996. It worked.

and note the law was enacted while a conservative Prime Minister was in office.

Can we eliminate all guns? No, of course not, nor should we. But to think we can do nothing is absolutely wrong.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

Can you explain to me, please, how a signal from a large, bulky jammer device could not be replicated by a small, unbulky device?

Also: just to serve as an additional data point for a theory I am developing, what experience do you personally have with firearms?

I have the same experience with firearms as you have with a uterus. When you shut up about abortion, maybe your point will be valid.

And I asked first: are you genuinely suggesting that if we put the might of American engineering toward regulating guns and making them less fucking convenient for massacres, we can’t do anything?