# So what will it take for there to be serious gun control debate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2019, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166 "2019-08-04T09:51:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/201 "2019-08-06T15:49:02Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by this. I said that faulty aircraft software doesn’t benefit anyone. Except the airlines and airplane manufactures who are out hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you consider a hundred million dollars not being lost to be a benefit? If not, can I check your couch cushions? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/202 "2019-08-06T15:51:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > They may not admit it, even to themselves, but that’s still what not \*not \*wanting it means. > > They \*call \*it recognizing and accepting the price society (IOW other people) must pay in order for them to keep their talismans. But isn’t that what not \*not \*wanting that actually means? A double negative isn’t necessarily a positive. Someone can say “I don’t want the border wall built” while not wanting illegal immigration. Granted, the practical consequences may be the same. But claiming that someone wants X because they don’t want Y is often inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/203 "2019-08-06T15:54:13Z")
Would you at least admit that they hold possessing the means to kill in far greater regard than other people’s right to _life_? Can we further agree that that is psychopathic? ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/204 "2019-08-06T15:56:36Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Not at all. In fact, basically your attitude is what you would need the general population to feel in order to get serious gun control or outright bans in place. Surely, and thanks for the reply. I was sort of asking this of **UltraVires** , though, since he made a rather silly remark about how evidently you have to believe in magic to think that fewer guns means more safety…or something. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/205 "2019-08-06T16:01:21Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I am no fan of gun ownership, but the notion (by the other poster above) that gun owners revel with joy in Sandy Hooks, El Pasos, Daytons and Pulses is ludicrous. No, they don’t enjoy these massacres, but they accept the massacres as the price to be paid for their right to own certain guns. They also do not want to accept responsibility for the price being paid. They know the price we (all) have to pay, they accept the price, they demand that we have a country where the price will be paid, but don’t want to be held responsible for it. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/206 "2019-08-06T16:03:42Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Surely, and thanks for the reply. I was sort of asking this of **UltraVires** , though, since he made a rather silly remark about how evidently you have to believe in magic to think that fewer guns means more safety…or something. Fewer guns in the hands of those willing to use them criminally, most assuredly. But fewer guns alone? Nah The key to safety is in the restricting of whom should have them, as I stated earlier in this thread only to be told that it was impossible 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/207 "2019-08-06T16:05:10Z")
The bottom line is that gun control legislation has to be sold to voters effectively. We can debate the measures themselves endlessly but what really matters is how they are marketed to America as being something that people should want. Politics is now 100% marketing. It’s always been mostly marketing but now at this point it really is completely marketing. We have to be thinking like Don Draper here. The only way to get gun control measures enacted is for them to be sold effectively - both _to_ the legislators and _by_ the legislators. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/208 "2019-08-06T16:07:59Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > The only way to get gun control measures enacted is for them to be sold effectively - both _to_ the legislators and _by_ the legislators. So we gain McConnell’s soul just by \*outbidding \*the NRA? Hmm, maybe you got a point there. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/209 "2019-08-06T16:16:55Z")
It relates to [your post in the election thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21790470&postcount=2191) - gun control is inextricably linked to the issue of electoral politics at large. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/210 "2019-08-06T16:17:57Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … Do you also feel that that is an ugly smear, and one of the obstacles to a “serious gun control debate”? It’s certainly quite a few degrees down the gratuitously-offensive scale from suggesting that the many millions of your fellow citizens who count themselves among the supporters of the right of the people to keep and bear arms “simply want murder, terrorism, and every other thing they can get away with.” As **XT** mentioned, you “should probably just retract that ridiculous assertion and move on.” ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/211 "2019-08-06T16:28:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It’s certainly quite a few degrees down the gratuitously-offensive scale from suggesting that the many millions of your fellow citizens who count themselves among the supporters of the right of the people to keep and bear arms “simply want murder, terrorism, and every other thing they can get away with.” As **XT** mentioned, you “should probably just retract that ridiculous assertion and move on.” If you don’t want murder and terror, then what are you doing about it? Pwning the libs on a messageboard when they try to have a discussion isn’t really helping. When you find delight and amusement in the frustration of someone trying to prevent death and violence is pretty gratuitously offensive too. Actions speak louder than words, and given that it has been expressed in this very thread that a gun ban involves bloodshed, then implying that the only reason that we want to try to reduce deaths is to take away their guns is the same as claiming that we want to kill them. There are some people here and there who advocate for a full ban, and those are used as an excuse to claim that we are lying about our intentions. There really are gun nuts out there that really do use their guns to kill and maim people, how generous should I be in determining the motives of those who demand we do nothing? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/212 "2019-08-06T16:34:05Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > Fewer guns in the hands of those willing to use them criminally, most assuredly. > > But fewer guns alone? Nah > > The key to safety is in the restricting of whom should have them, as I stated earlier in this thread only to be told that it was impossible 😉 It isn’t impossible to restrict ownership to specific people, it’s impossible to distinguish a lawful user from someone who is “willing” to use them criminally. It’s impossible to determine that a lawful owner has turned into a person who is willing to use guns criminally and take their guns away from them. It’s impossible to have hundreds of millions of guns legally owned and expect it to be difficult for criminals to get their hands on them. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/213 "2019-08-06T16:39:31Z")
It’s \*easy \*to tell the Good Guys from the Bad Guys - just look at the colors of their hats. Or skin. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/214 "2019-08-06T16:46:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s more real now than it has been in the past - when people say they don’t want to ban guns, or they respect the 2nd amendment, that pretense is no longer viable because it’s quite obvious that gun control advocates simply want bans, repeal of the 2nd, and every other thing they can get away with. I’ll tell you what we want: an end to the gratuitous slaughter. If there’s a way for everyone to keep their guns, but have them be magically nonfunctional when pointed at a person who is not a violent assailant, I’d be totally good with that. But what I see from the pro-gun side is: a whole bunch of **other** people getting killed is an acceptable price to pay for **our** rights. When I see pro-gun folks using their superior knowledge of the subject matter that they always flaunt in these debates, to try to find that sweet spot that reduces the carnage by a great deal at minimal reduction to their access to weapons of mass slaughter, I’ll change my mind. But I’ve never seen such an attempt. It’s always your rights trumping other people’s lives. I call that: evil. And I suggest you guys get busy and come up with such a plan. You can do it knowledgeably now, or the time will come when we have the political power to do it, and we’ll do it with a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel. The first generation that’s grown up with active-shooter drills in school has in fact grown up, and more are following them. You will find that having terrorized generations of children won’t work in your favor. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/215 "2019-08-06T16:48:43Z")
> [@XT](#): > > The key point, however, is that the public attitude towards tobacco (and alcohol to a degree) shifted, and people voluntarily started to give it up, to restrict when and where it could be used, and even how…and the deaths came down. Something similar has to happen wrt guns if you ever want to seriously restrict them for whatever reason. The public has to willing be in a place where they don’t care or actively don’t want to own a gun. It’s got to be a lot like the lead up to Prohibition in the US, where a large group of people are wanting to give up alcohol…enough to actually change the Constitution and either vacate or amend the Amendment. I think the gun deaths, especially the mass ones DO have an effect on the public, but not enough (well, not fast enough for most of you) to create the sorts of change that are being advocated. It’s going to take a shift in public opinion on this by a majority saying we don’t want or need guns and we don’t need an Amendment protecting our right to guns to meet what the OP is asking for. IMHO of course. Obviously, YMMV. I see this as two different things. People choosing to not own guns is a personal choice and I don’t feel it will have any significant effect on the amount of gun crimes for the reason I mentioned above. People calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment is different; they’re asking for a change that will apply to everyone. That, in my opinion, is what’s needed to significantly reduce gun crimes. We need to be able to take guns away from the small minority of people who will use them to harm others - because those people will not willingly give up their guns. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/216 "2019-08-06T16:49:46Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If you don’t want murder and terror, then what are you doing about it? … Teaching my family that those things are wrong, carrying a weapon so that I’ll have at least a chance to defend myself and them if I’m ever caught up in an attack, urging others to avoid ridiculous hyperbole like your post, etc. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > … Pwning the libs on a messageboard when they try to have a discussion isn’t really helping. … Who here do you think is “try[ing] to have a discussion”? You? It certainly doesn’t come across that way when you say the other side “simply want murder, terrorism, and every other thing they can get away with.” > [@k9bfriender](#): > > … how generous should I be in determining the motives of those who demand we do nothing? You can be as ‘ungenerous’ as you like, you just won’t be taken seriously while doing so. Your ‘ungenerous’ post came across as “ridiculous” & “ludicrous” in the eyes of others. I suppose you’re free to make ridiculous posts or stomp your feet as well, but it doesn’t come across as a sincere attempt to ‘have a discussion’ with the other side. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/217 "2019-08-06T16:55:09Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > So if Alabama puts a 1000% tax on abortions, you are going to be okay with that and think it is constitutional, right? Or would the Supreme Court just be pulling something out of its ass if it struck down that law? 1. I’m surprised Alabamians haven’t thought of this already; 2. I’m not saying it’s my preferred method of dealing with the situation, and I wouldn’t propose a tax on ammo for the sake of taxing it. Rather, we could tax firearms and ammo the way we tax cigarettes and use it to fund health programs (in theory). > [@UltraVires](#): > > It simply amazes me that so many people on this board would gladly give away a right protected by the Bill of Rights for some magical feeling of safety that somehow by banning guns these people will just stop doing this. Nobody thinks they will stop doing this; but some of us believe that taking certain steps will reduce the likelihood of them happening, and give more people a chance to survive when someone snaps in public. Gun rights activists keep decrying an increasingly broad and diverse set of proposals; they keep covering their eyes and ears, and they’re completely fucking oblivious to the fact that it’s their refusal to budge an inch that is leading more and more voters - many of whom wouldn’t have even fathomed supporting firearms restrictions 10-15 years ago - to reconsider their positions. Gun owners’ rights? Fuck, what about our rights to live in a peaceful and violence-free society? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/218 "2019-08-06T16:55:50Z")
It isn’t the Second itself that’s the problem so much as the now-persistent misinterpretations of it that were invented just a few decades ago by the gun lobby. But, given that there’s no question that we need a standing military and professional police forces, formerly the roles of militias, we no longer have any need for the Second. It would be a great help at this point to repeal it, put an end to this “militias resist tyranny” nonsense (directly contradicted elsewhere in the Constitution, and actually meaning “killing cops”), and take away all of their other favorite excuses about falsely-claimed “rights” that cannot be found anywhere else, in any recognized system of morality. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/219 "2019-08-06T16:56:56Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > … We need to be able to take guns away from the small minority of people who will use them to harm others - because those people will not willingly give up their guns. If we were able to accurately identify that “small minority of people”, and effectively prevent them from accessing firearms, do you think their desire to “harm others” would cease, or do you think they’d seek out other means to “harm others” such as arson, explosives, vehicular attacks, melee weapons, etc.? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2019, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166/220 "2019-08-06T16:58:37Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Does it or does it not make sense to you that even if one state has effective gun control that reduces deaths, it makes sense to have the same laws in neighboring states. IOW, that there is nothing magical about state lines, that gun control that works in one place will work another. That all one has to do if he lives in the most “gun controlled” state in the US but lives next to the least, is go across state lines for guns, thus rendering the laws in the first state less effective? > > I’d like to make all guns illegal that allow, among other things, **one to kill or maim 30 or more people in 30 seconds** , yes. Absolutely. And not because they look scary. Because, see bold portion. > > That may be so, but this is a thread about guns. I don’t think distractions and changing the subject is helpful. I simply ask because you are okay, then, with that 2% resulting in the number of deaths involved, correct? Buying a gun across state lines is already illegal, and in fact they cant sell to you unless you have ID which shows you reside in that state. So how are more gun laws going to help? Well, those guns are already illegal. Are you Ok with baseball bats killing people? Lets outlaw them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-will-it-take-for-there-to-be-serious-gun-control-debate/838166.md?page=12)