• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gun Control Measures

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SMOGZINN said:
Can't solve 100% of the problem in one go so why try? Why do we even bother making it illegal to kill cops, it obviously did't stop him.
Click to expand...


No, that isn't the argument. If it doesn't help, but restricts lawful citizens, why bother? These feel good do nothing restrictions the left wants are not going to tangibly help the problem.
 
SlowSpyder said:
No, that isn't the argument. If it doesn't help, but restricts lawful citizens, why bother? These feel good do nothing restrictions the left wants are not going to tangibly help the problem.
Click to expand...

Can you give me one reason to think it would not help? Everything, even basic logic, says it would help. It just won't instantly solve the problem.
 
SMOGZINN said:
Can you give me one reason to think it would not help? Everything, even basic logic, says it would help. It just won't instantly solve the problem.
Click to expand...

Well one reason is that past restrictions didn't really work (see Assault Weapons Ban). Another is that current methods of background checks and such don't seem to do anything to prevent mass shootings either since basically all of the shooters lately passed the background checks. IMHO we already have too much of a security state going on with NSA evesdropping, etc. and the amount of additional surveillance needed to "stop" mass shootings would turn us into an outright police state. And it wouldn't be limited to just gun owners either, EVERYONE would be caught up in it. Notice how everyone's info is routinely harvested by government in the name of "having dots to connect" when 99.9999999% of us will never have the slightest thing to do with terrorism.

I suppose if you like security theater like the TSA making you throw out your small bottle of hand sanitizer "just in case it's a bomb" that expanding background checks further are useful as a panacea. Of course those supporting the typical set of gun control measures don't bother addressing the actual concerns of gun owners (like cost, speed, convenience) if "universal background checks" were adopted and miscast it as opposing all background checks generally.
 
glenn1 said:
Well one reason is that past restrictions didn't really work (see Assault Weapons Ban). Another is that current methods of background checks and such don't seem to do anything to prevent mass shootings either since basically all of the shooters lately passed the background checks. IMHO we already have too much of a security state going on with NSA evesdropping, etc. and the amount of additional surveillance needed to "stop" mass shootings would turn us into an outright police state. And it wouldn't be limited to just gun owners either, EVERYONE would be caught up in it. Notice how everyone's info is routinely harvested by government in the name of "having dots to connect" when 99.9999999% of us will never have the slightest thing to do with terrorism.

I suppose if you like security theater like the TSA making you throw out your small bottle of hand sanitizer "just in case it's a bomb" that expanding background checks further are useful as a panacea. Of course those supporting the typical set of gun control measures don't bother addressing the actual concerns of gun owners (like cost, speed, convenience) if "universal background checks" were adopted and miscast it as opposing all background checks generally.
Click to expand...

Gun control is generally effective at reducing gun violence though so it sure seems like a good idea even if it doesn’t stop all shootings.
 
glenn1 said:
Well one reason is that past restrictions didn't really work (see Assault Weapons Ban). Another is that current methods of background checks and such don't seem to do anything to prevent mass shootings either since basically all of the shooters lately passed the background checks.
Click to expand...

So, you think that if we removed all weapon restrictions and just allowed machine guns to be sold in vending machines that nothing much would change? Otherwise what you are really saying is it did not change enough for you, because I hold that those things did work. They just didn't work well enough. Which means we should look at what parts did work, and what parts failed, and then improve on them, not abandon them.

IMHO we already have too much of a security state going on with NSA evesdropping, etc. and the amount of additional surveillance needed to "stop" mass shootings would turn us into an outright police state.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about additional surveillance? Now you are making things up. That would only be needed if we were going to attack this from the behavioral side. That is the gun nuts version of security. Those of us that want gun control accept that bad things are going to happen and instead want to limit how bad they can be. It is literally the same argument on why we ban high explosives and other weapons of mass destruction.
 
AR-15's and assorted semi-auto rifles are still for $400 and up. Seems no one is really concerned that extreme gun control/banning/checks and other measures are going to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top