Gun Control

[Mxylplyx]

problem is many drugs cause people to do things that effect others.

Me owning a gun effects NOBODY except those idiots that try to hurt me and my family.

me shooting targets (btw i pay for that too) does not effect you.

Since you make the distinction between responsible and irresponsible gun owners, why can that not apply to drugs?

You shooting targets, and more importantly having easy access to the instruments to do so, directly enables criminals access to those same instruments, whether they have legal access or not. So yes, you owning a gun absolutely does affect somebody. My good friend from Atlanta would have liked to believe him owning guns affected nobody, until someone broke into his truck and stole 3 of them. I guess since at that moment he crossed from responsible gun owner to irresponsible gun owner, there is zero culpability among responsible gun owners as to what crimes might be committed by those guns, right?

 

[Mxylplyx]

But that was my whole point -- you have to look at each case. And banning guns would be a lot more comparable to banning alcohol than banning anthrax.

Just because it's "more comparable", don't mistake it for being closely comparable. Alcohol can be distilled anywhere and by anybody. Despite what some others attempt to argue, relatively few people possess the skills and equiptment to manufacture a firearm from scratch.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Despite what some others attempt to argue, relatively few people possess the skills and equiptment to manufacture a firearm from scratch.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but I haven't seen you provide anything to back it up.

The people saying that it's not as hard as you say, have provided examples from both personal experience and news stories.

In the event of a gun ban, I wouldn't expect most guns to be made at home anyway. There will still be millions around, from those who refused to turn them in -- "gun? i own no guns" -- and from smuggling.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Thanks, Dank.

On the anthrax analogy, let's be clear what the point is. It's simply that in this 'if x is outlawed only outlaws will have x' is a fallacy.

It completely ignores the relevant question - how many fewer outlaws will have x than if it's not outlawed?

Now, you have to look at each case. In the case of alcohol - which there were reasons to ban - it turned out not to work at all - drinking actually went up.

But each thing has its own answer to the question. I suspect a lot fewer people who might use a dangerous strain of anthrax have it because of the restrictions.

And with guns, the question is, with various bans, how many fewer criminals would have them?

A large percentage of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal gun owners - so reducing the number of those legal owners actually would reduce the supply for criminals.

My point was about the popular parroted phrase above being a fallacy.

Are there valid points to discuss if someone wants to argue it won't help much? Probably. That phrase isn't one.

The phrase, in and of itself, isn't inherently a fallacy, although it's usage is often suspect. But you're skipping the second part of the argument. The first part - if we ban legal access to guns, it will also drive down access for illegal ownership of guns by restricting supply - is perfectly valid. But what about the second part: does the benefit of making it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns justify the cost of eliminating the right of law-abiding citizens to possess them? That all boils down to a matter of opinion. You clearly feel as though it's a small price to pay to help restrict the flow of guns into the hands of those who would use them to harm others (I'm guessing that you neither own nor have any interest in owning guns yourself). I feel as though it is an unnecessary and overreaching restriction to place on law-abiding citizens for an assumed reduction in crime (I don't personally own guns, I have no interest in owning guns, I've never even fired a gun). The benefit doesn't justify the cost in my opinion, and that's where there's a massive disconnect in the gun debate in this country right now. And it's a disconnect that is never going to change. The gun culture in our country goes down to our core, to the point where the founding fathers put an amendment about arms into the Bill of Rights before anything about due process or a trial by jury or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Fighting against guns is a losing battle on a national scale.

 

[jackstar7]

Drugs do make for an interesting comparison.

Drug users have for generations been seen as degenerates and criminals who would rob you blind, rape you a new hole, and kill you for their next "fix". But society has actually shifted (I think in large part due to big pharma) to a more accepting view of drug use on the whole. Now it's seen as a personal choice that rarely affects the larger socierty. Life is so shitty that people just want to get high and at some point the people in power are realizing that they might as well let people do it, because they (both the folks in power AND the individuals) are sure not going to do anything to make their lives better.

But with guns, the shift in perception has been moving in the other direction. People have for generations just considered guns as a benevolent part of our society and culture, even in spite of their use in criminal enterprises. Now with the higher profile of gun violence it is hitting a polarizing split. Some people are outraged that this accepted part of U.S. culture is under attack, while others believe it is another case of a part of our culture being outdated.

Perhaps as a culture we can only tolerate so much personal freedom, so the greater acceptance of drugs is somehow being "balanced" by the loss of freedoms with regards to guns, privacy, etc.

 

[Craig234]

Charles, have you ever run into someone who just will not listen?

They have the best of intentions, but will not listen. You're doing that on this one issue.

I've explained it several times and explicitly said what the point is over and over, and in every reply you have made you have utterly ignored what I said the point is.

All I can do is point that out to you. I don't care to keep repeating the same thing. And iif I did it's likely I think that you would just run off yet another random direction.

If you want to try, I'll try to help you get past the blind spot in your listening.

But it's clear to me you need to take a deep breath and hear what I'm telling you that you are blindly locked in on a track and not listening on this.

To save us both time, re-read several of my posts with the phrase "the only point of the analogy is..." and what follows read over and over a few times.

 

[jackstar7]

Being condescending is probably not going to help the discourse.

That's just a general suggestion.

 

[skyking]

I am not referring to gun education, though that would be good, too. I am referring to regular education.

I agree. There exists a culture of violence that is augmented by the entertainment and media, and it does not depend on guns or weapons to come to fruition.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

One is called out specifically as a constitutional right; the other is not.

True, but there are a few problems with this line of thinking. Guns were much more prevalent than drugs in 18th century America while they were hashing out the details of what rights the people should have. Most drugs that we have today simply didn't exist in that time period, and the supply of things like opium was virtually non-existent in America until we started bringing in Chinese immigrant labor in the mid-1800s (and opium remained legal into the 20th century). The founding fathers themselves cultivated hemp, something that is illegal under current federal law, as well as distilling alcohol (something made illegal by the 18th Amendment before being overturned). I think it's safe to say that the founding fathers, had drug use been more prevalent in that time, would have taken a more relaxed stance against drugs than we see today, although our drug laws are in response towards stronger substances than ever existed in those times.

I do find it ironic that many people who are vehemently opposed to gun ownership are also in favor of overturning many of our drug laws to make drugs more widely available. Apparently the freedom to do what you personally want is more important than someone else's freedom to do something you have no interest in.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Craig, I understand your frustration. I assure you that I think you are not getting my points every bit as much as you feel I am not getting yours.

Unfortunately, when it comes to contentious subjects, there are just going to be times when one side cannot convince the other. It doesn't mean anyone is refusing to listen. It just means we don't agree on the validity of the other's premises, argument, or both.

 

[waggy]

But don't you see here that the exact same thing can be said about guns? You may not affect anyone with your guns -- juYst as I might not affect anyone with my drug use (this is an example, I'm too boring to do drugs). But you say other people could use drugs improperly. So can (and do) some gun owners.

sure and people that use guns improperly should face the fullest punishment buy law. idiotic gun owners should face punishment.

Since you make the distinction between responsible and irresponsible gun owners, why can that not apply to drugs?

You shooting targets, and more importantly having easy access to the instruments to do so, directly enables criminals access to those same instruments, whether they have legal access or not. So yes, you owning a gun absolutely does affect somebody. My good friend from Atlanta would have liked to believe him owning guns affected nobody, until someone broke into his truck and stole 3 of them. I guess since at that moment he crossed from responsible gun owner to irresponsible gun owner, there is zero culpability among responsible gun owners as to what crimes might be committed by those guns, right?

your friend being negligent has nothing to do with responsible gun owners. this comparison is insane to use.

as for drug users i said that if you can do it in a way that does not effect others smoke yourself into oblivion for all i care.

 

[dank69]

Thanks, Dank.

On the anthrax analogy, let's be clear what the point is. It's simply that in this 'if x is outlawed only outlaws will have x' is a fallacy.

No, it is not a fallacy. It is a universal truth, which is why you have to augment it with the following:

It completely ignores the relevant question - how many fewer outlaws will have x than if it's not outlawed?

These are two separate ideas which you are treating as the same.

Follow the logic:
Possessing X is illegal
Y possesses X
Y is breaking the law

You cannot argue this, so your statement that "'if x is outlawed only outlaws will have x' is a fallacy" is 100% untrue.

Despite this fact, nobody is denying that the "relevant question" should be asked and analyzed because one is not dependant on the other.

 

[waggy]

Despite what some others attempt to argue, relatively few people possess the skills and equiptment to manufacture a firearm from scratch.

again we have proven you are wrong in this. How about you prove to us that there are "only a few" able to make a gun.

http://thehomegunsmith.com/

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/atf-seized-homemade-firearms-from-waxahatchie-man.html/

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL982044B84425F7A6 hell how about a youtube playlist?

here is a book on amazon on it.
http://www.amazon.com/Homemade-Guns-Ammo-Ronald-Brown/dp/158160677X

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2013/02/harry_shepherd_lewis_jr.php hell a guy built a machine gun in his garage!

 

[dank69]

sure and people that use guns improperly should face the fullest punishment buy law. idiotic gun owners should face punishment.




your friend being negligent has nothing to do with responsible gun owners. this comparison is insane to use.

as for drug users i said that if you can do it in a way that does not effect others smoke yourself into oblivion for all i care.

The comparison is 100% valid. To illustrate this, take your statement bolded above and compare it to this:

sure and people that use drugs improperly should face the fullest punishment buy law. idiotic drug owners should face punishment.

Now, I wouldn't word it that way, because "improperly" and "idiotic" are subjective terms that can describe both actions that should be and actions that should not be punishable in both cases with guns and drugs. Examples: Your gun is stolen and someone gets hurt with it, should you be punished? Your gun is stolen and is later recovered and nobody was ever hurt by it, should you be punished? In both cases your gun was in your house and was stolen by a burglar, but you did not have it locked in a safe. Some would call that idiotic.

 

[dank69]

Just because it's "more comparable", don't mistake it for being closely comparable. Alcohol can be distilled anywhere and by anybody. Despite what some others attempt to argue, relatively few people possess the skills and equiptment to manufacture a firearm from scratch.

Okay, seriously, you are vastly overstating the difficulty of making a gun.

 

[dank69]

again we have proven you are wrong in this. How about you prove to us that there are "only a few" able to make a gun.

http://thehomegunsmith.com/

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/atf-seized-homemade-firearms-from-waxahatchie-man.html/

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL982044B84425F7A6 hell how about a youtube playlist?

here is a book on amazon on it.
http://www.amazon.com/Homemade-Guns-Ammo-Ronald-Brown/dp/158160677X

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2013/02/harry_shepherd_lewis_jr.php hell a guy built a machine gun in his garage!

Let me ask you this, how difficult is it to make bullets? Harder or easier than making a gun?

 

[highland145]

The discussion should be centered more around applying severe punishments to those that commit crimes with guns instead of penalizing legal owners. If you got the death penalty for committing any crime with a gun 1) You'd only get caught once and 2)That's a pretty big deterrent.

Don't think the the anti-death penalty people won't go for that but they should if the goal is to reduce murders in the long run. Probably many more lives saved than from banning assault rifles/high cap mags from law abiding citizens. Anyone can look at Chicago and see their restriction aren't working.

In 2007, it was a 2100 to 1 ratio for murders vs accidental deaths by firearms. The accidental deaths could be reduced with education.

Mental health issues, the government can mandate Drs report it.

Unless it's a retroactive ban, taking guns from owners, a ban from today forward won't reduce the number of guns on the market. People will take care of what they have. I've got a 40 year old S&W that's in near pristine condition and a 1937 H&R .22 that shoots just fine.

 

[waggy]

Let me ask you this, how difficult is it to make bullets? Harder or easier than making a gun?

well my ex Father-in-law would reload all the time so it looked easy.

http://www.amazon.com/Get-started-reloading/lm/R1I7866RR2NEE0


edit: also thinking on this. I wonder if making a custom gun you could also make a custom firing pin. making a musket type gun would be very easy.

i do think making the ammo would be harder then the gun itself.

 

[dank69]

well my ex Father-in-law would reload all the time so it looked easy.

http://www.amazon.com/Get-started-reloading/lm/R1I7866RR2NEE0

I suspect reloading is significantly easier than creating from scratch.

 

[Kelvrick]

I suspect reloading is significantly easier than creating from scratch.

Making from scratch? I'd say the modern cartridges are harder than a modern firearm if you want to do it from your garage. The bullets themselves are easy. Melt down some lead (popular source are wheel weights) and pour it into a mold.

Even mixing the powder would be comparatively easy and for primers, some people reduce it down to the tips of strike anywhere matches.

The "brass" is the hard part. Which is why you see people picking up their spend cartridges at ranges.
http://snag.gy/OPjG8.jpg

Those will be a little harder to make at home.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The discussion should be centered more around applying severe punishments to those that commit crimes with guns instead of penalizing legal owners.

And, I would add, to those who allow crimes to be committed through their negligence.

 

[blankslate]

I do find it ironic that many people who are vehemently opposed to gun ownership are also in favor of overturning many of our drug laws to make drugs more widely available. Apparently the freedom to do what you personally want is more important than someone else's freedom to do something you have no interest in.

That's the thing there's a bit more nuance in terms of people who favor decriminalization of certain drugs and feel that there is a problem with the way firearms are easily accessible.

I'd rather see better background checks which would include a better way to keep mentally unbalanced people from obtaining firearms.

This seems to be a factor of 3 out of the 4 recent mass shootings since Virginia Tech in which the perpetrator had serious mental conditions that made them dangerous around firearms.




The main access for criminals and firearms seems to be the black market and straw purchasers are just as prevalent or more so than criminals obtaining their weapons through theft.

Oddly enough the organization that is charged with cracking down on black market dealers is also the organization that is getting gimped on funding and doesn't have an official administrator who has been appointed an confirmed. If you're concerned about the ATF doing dumb things as they have done in the past, then find a leader for it who is a gun enthusiast. The current administration has shown a willingness to compromise on enough things that this might be within the realm of possibility. Rather than doing that many would like to see the ATF continue in the state that it is in.


What I don't understand is why someone needs more than a 30 round magazine for a rifle or more than 15 rounds which some semi-auto pistols come with.

If you're getting attacked in your home by enough armed determined (as in won't flee when resisted by an armed person) assailants, that you actually need several reloads with 15 round magazines for your handgun to disable them then you're an extremely unlucky individual who has in effect won the negative lottery (because odds of that happening out of the blue are pretty much the same odds of winning a sizable lottery prize).
Either that, or you are participating in activities that you should not be if you are afraid of multiple armed attackers.


I'm sure that someone might chime up with some pistol that comes from the factory with 20 or more round mags but really those are probably rather rare examples.

Don't think the the anti-death penalty people won't go for that but they should if the goal is to reduce murders in the long run.

My problem with the death penalty is the fact that there seems to be too many people put on death row or actually executed who could very be (or have been before dying) innocent of the crime they have been sentenced for.

If such cases were even more extremely rare so as to be practically unheard of I wouldn't be against the death penalty in general.

I also think that decriminalization of drugs would reduce the demand from organized crime for firearms. Which is a big problem in Mexico.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

What I don't understand is why someone needs more than a 30 round magazine for a rifle or more than 15 rounds which some semi-auto pistols come with.

You can extend this line of reasoning to any number of products that are potentially harmful if used in a dangerous manner. Why do we need cars with more than 200 horsepower? Why don't we just electronically limit all cars to 85 mph? Why are individuals allowed to purchase alcohol in quantities that would kill them if consumed in a single sitting? Why do we allow people to buy dangerous power tools than can maim or kill without requiring a license demonstrating they are qualified to handle them? Part of living in a free society is the implicit understanding that the government is not given complete control over every aspect of our lives where we may potentially harm ourselves. There's a reason we allow people to buy guns with large magazines, to buy cars with enormous engines, to buy a case of whiskey and a bandsaw (probably not at the same time, admittedly), and it's because there is an understanding that personal liberty outweighs the government's need to protect us from ourselves.

I would ask those in favor of banning guns or restricting ammunition how they feel about the TSA (I know this sounds like a complete strawman, but hear me out). The TSA was created as a response to 9/11, the worst terrorist attack we'd ever experienced. It came as an emotional response to a horrific tragedy, the idea that we must never let something like 9/11 happen again. The rhetoric of the gun debate over the past few months has continually come back to Aurora and to Sandy Hook and school shootings from the past. These are horrifying tragedies, there's no question. But the proposed reaction is coming from a place of emotion, of anger, of fear, of vengeance. It's not based on logic, it's based on the visceral response to hearing that 20 kindergartners were murdered in cold blood. Logically, your chances of getting killed in a mass murder are virtually zero. But from an emotional standpoint, it's terrifying. So we look for ways to "stop this from ever happening again," despite the relatively uncommon nature of the act. And when you legislate from a place of emotion rather than logic, you get the TSA, or worse, the Patriot Act. How's that working out for us? If we can't look at this debate from a logical standpoint rather than an emotional one, then we're going to end up with poor legislation that doesn't address the real issues and creates problems that didn't exist before.

 

[highland145]

My problem with the death penalty is the fact that there seems to be too many people put on death row or actually executed who could very be (or have been before dying) innocent of the crime they have been sentenced for.

If such cases were even more extremely rare so as to be practically unheard of I wouldn't be against the death penalty in general.

There were 400k+ murders in 2007. The death penalty for them was 100%

I believe the #s are very small but I wouldn't want to be that one innocent guy. But I also don't want to feed the criminals for life. What would be an acceptable number if firearm violence/murders is drastically reduced. Many, many innocent lives saved. Many more than the few innocents executed.

 

[blankslate]

There were 400k+ murders in 2007. The death penalty for them was 100%

I believe the #s are very small but I wouldn't want to be that one innocent guy. But I also don't want to feed the criminals for life. What would be an acceptable number if firearm violence/murders is drastically reduced. Many, many innocent lives saved. Many more than the few innocents executed.

We'll have to agree to disagree about it then. I don't like having someone executed who may have been innocent because some politician didn't want to seem soft. No matter how rare that instance is.