Gun Control

[blankslate]

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.

Logic doesn't dictate that you need anymore capacity than 30 round mags for a rifle or carbine or 15-20 round mags for a handgun for home defense.

It also dictates that we should be looking at people who might be problematic and keeping them from getting firearms. Except for the mental illness part it would generally require better enforcement of existing laws rather than new ones.
I touched upon factors that could be addressed to do that.

Something in my post that you replied to that you chose to ignore yet seems pretty logical to me.

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?

The car vs. firearm comparison has been done to death. Stick a fork in it.

• A car's primary purpose is to transport people and their effects to and from places.
  
• While the mass and speed of a car can make them extremely dangerous there are required insurance laws and licensing prerequisites for legally operating a car and they are much more standard in differing states than gun regulations.
• People tend to need vehicles for transportation to and from work much more than they require firearms to carry out their work requirements. Therefore it's very likely that people who drive cars do so more often than gun owners actually go to the range to practice/train/have fun. Ask a person who owns both how often they use either.... it be an interesting poll I'd reckon.
• motorized vehicles did not exist 200+ years ago
  

It's not an exact analogy and using it to argue a point on guns can easily lead one to emotional arguments.

 

[dank69]

Logic doesn't dictate that you need anymore capacity than 30 round mags for a rifle or carbine or 15-20 round mags for a handgun for home defense.

Logic doesn't support the restriction of magazine capacity. Maybe my job as a journalist is infiltrating organized crime syndicates undercover to expose their operations. Maybe when I run my story they decide to send a small army to kill me and my family.

It also dictates that we should be looking at people who might be problematic and keeping them from getting firearms. I touched upon factors that could be addressed to do that.

Something in my post that you replied to that you chose to ignore yet seems pretty logical to me.



The car vs. firearm comparison has been done to death. Stick a fork in it.

• A car's primary purpose is to transport people and their effects to and from places.
  
• While the mass and speed of a car can make them extremely dangerous there are required insurance laws and licensing prerequisites for legally operating a car and they are much more standard in differing states than gun regulations.
• People tend to need vehicles for transportation to and from work much more than they require firearms to carry out their work requirements. Therefore it's very likely that people who drive cars do so more often than gun owners actually go to the range to practice/train/have fun. Ask a person who owns both how often they use either.... it be an interesting poll I'd reckon.
• motorized vehicles did not exist 200+ years ago
  

It's not an exact analogy and using it to argue a point on guns can easily lead one to emotional arguments.

And you chose not to address the question of why does anyone logically need a car with 200+ hp? or 300? or 500? Or why shouldn't we limit cars to the posted speed limits?

 

[blankslate]

And you chose not to address the question of why does anyone logically need a car with 200+ hp? or 300? or 500?

You don't. However, a person who obeys the law won't be utilizing all of that horse power on the road except to perhaps pass someone who is driving below the speed limit.

Additionally cars with that much horsepower that come from the factory tend to have better suspension, steering, aerodynamic factors, and brakes to begin with. They are also often the first vehicles that get newer safety features as an option. Traction control for example.

We already enforce speed limit laws. Speed too much then you lose your license. Fire 30 rounds into the air and you'll probably get a felony charge on your record.

We require insurance to drive on public roads. This insurance pays out when an idiot drives a car faster than his capacity to control it (unless he behaves in such an egregious manner that the company can get out of paying it I suppose). Require liability insurance for all gun owners then and we can start comparing cars to firearms.

 

[dank69]

You don't. However, a person who obeys the law won't be utilizing all of that horse power on the road except to perhaps pass someone who is driving below the speed limit.

Additionally cars with that much horsepower that come from the factory tend to have better suspension, steering, aerodynamic factors, and brakes to begin with. They are

We already enforce speed limit laws. Speed too much then you lose your license. We require insurance to drive on public roads. This insurance pays out when an idiot drives a car faster than his capacity to control it. Require liability insurance for all gun owners then and we can start comparing cars to firearms. I'd welcome that.

We already enforce murder laws. Insurance money doesn't help the families of 20 elementary school children killed when a 16yo cuts off a school bus killing them all.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

• A car's primary purpose is to transport people and their effects to and from places.

Okay. What do you think the primary purpose of a firearm is (for law-abiding citizens, obviously)?

 

[blankslate]

We already enforce murder laws. Insurance money doesn't help the families of 20 elementary school children killed when a 16yo cuts off a school bus killing them all.

Someone who is killed with a firearm doesn't get any insurance money at all. saying insurance money doesn't help at all is fallacious. It can pay for the funerals for the children. No that doesn't help with the emotional loss but the parents should not be required to suffer that financial burden on top of the loss of a child.

As I said require liability insurance for firearms as they do for cars and we'll start moving the two items closer to validity for comparison.

 

[blankslate]

Okay. What do you think the primary purpose of a firearm is (for law-abiding citizens, obviously)?

A firearms primary function is to launch a projectile at an extremely high rate of speed in a pretty accurate manner (for modern examples, hobbyists might have antiques or ones made to an older standard).

A law abiding citizen can use that function of the firearm for home defense (or Concealed carry if they can get licensed), hunting, competition or sport / recreation.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

A firearms primary function is to launch a projectile at a high rate of speed in a pretty accurate manner (for modern examples, hobbyists might have antiques or ones made to an older standard).

I disagree. I believe the primary function of a firearm is to serve as a deterrent against violence directed at the firearm-holder or one he/she is protecting. The goal is not to have to discharge it unless necessary.

 

[highland145]

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.

But you could save many thousands of innocent lives by being tougher on gun crimes.

The ban proposals aren't going to do anything to reduce gun violence. I don't believe a total ban would do much. So what do you propose?

 

[highland145]

Someone who is killed with a firearm doesn't get any insurance money at all. saying insurance money doesn't help at all is fallacious. It can pay for the funerals for the children. No that doesn't help with the emotional loss but the parents should not be required to suffer that financial burden on top of the loss of a child.

As I said require liability insurance for firearms as they do for cars and we'll start moving the two items closer to validity for comparison.

Will do nothing about gun violence and the murder of innocents. I'd bet the 500+ weapons that were used to commit murder in Chicago weren't registered.

So what do we do to stop the murders?

 

[dank69]

Someone who is killed with a firearm doesn't get any insurance money at all. saying insurance money doesn't help at all is fallacious. It can pay for the funerals for the children. No that doesn't help with the emotional loss but the parents should not be required to suffer that financial burden on top of the loss of a child.

As I said require liability insurance for firearms as they do for cars and we'll start moving the two items closer to validity for comparison.

You can't just dismiss entire analogies just because they don't line up exactly. Most parts of the car analogy are still valid when used to rebutt specific arguments.

You say you can't think of a logical reason to possess a weapon with 30 round mags. You also can't think of a logical reason to possess a car with 300 hp. Restrictions on car use are not predicated on the amount of hp they have, so attempting to inject insurance into the analogy in order to dismiss it is not logical.

 

[blankslate]

But you could save many thousands of innocent lives by being tougher on gun crimes.

You could put them in jail for life without the possibility of parole, for a lower cost than the death penalty, if they commit a gun crime.

They'd be removed from the population just as well. And if it turns out that new evidence exonerates the individual convicted of the crime then perhaps the legal system isn't just left saying "Oopsie."

 

[Mxylplyx]

I think the gun debate needs to be broke down into a cost/benefit analysis. What is the cost, in this debate paid in blood, vs the benefit to society. Trying to use cars as a comparison because of their deadly potential is off base, because I NEED a car. Transportation is a backbone of modern society. Deaths resulting from it are unfortunate, but unavoidable because outlawing cars would unravel our society. With that said, cars have become much safer over the years due to advances in technology, so it is conceivable that technology advances will eventually mostly eliminate traffic fatalities.

Now onto guns, we see the price of gun availability in the news almost every day, sometimes in quite spectacular fashion. Over 11K homicides in 2009. In exchange for 11K men, women, and children every year, the benefit must be pretty awesome right? Wrong. Firstly, technology advances are making guns more deadly, not less. Secondly, if all pistols and assault rifles up and disappeared from this country tomorrow, life would go on, quite literally for many thousands of people murdered with guns every year, and the incidence of violent homicides would plummet greatly. Gun advocates might chime in that they are less "free", but their claims would be no more valid than a non gun owner claiming to be less free if their XBOX is taken away.

 

[dank69]

But you could save many thousands of innocent lives by being tougher on gun crimes.

The ban proposals aren't going to do anything to reduce gun violence. I don't believe a total ban would do much. So what do you propose?

You could put them in jail for life without the possibility of parole, for a lower cost than the death penalty, if they commit a gun crime.

They'd be removed from the population just as well. And if it turns out that new evidence exonerates the individual convicted of the crime then perhaps the legal system isn't just left saying "Oopsie."

You guys should start a thread discussing the death penalty. Not because I care if this thread gets derailed but because the forum could use all the threads it can get and that topic is thread worthy.

 

[blankslate]

Restrictions on car use are not predicated on the amount of hp they have, so attempting to inject insurance into the analogy in order to dismiss it is not logical.

Restrictions on a car are there to ensure safer operation. Although speed limits on the road depend on a wide variety of factors. A modern sports car is safer on the road at 100mph than a stock muscle car from the 60s early 70s era going the same speed.

Requiring insurance for cars is logical because of the amount of cars on the road and their potential for danger. Firearms can be potentially as dangerous (if not more so) but no insurance is required. That could be argued to defy logic. It is also a difference between guns and cars.

Yes you can kill a person with a car. There are problems with that though such as the damage you're likely to do to the vehicle if your intent is murder.

 

[highland145]

You guys should start a thread discussing the death penalty. Not because I care if this thread gets derailed but because the forum could use all the threads it can get and that topic is thread worthy.

I'm too lazy. Just saying that the answer lies with the punishment of criminals. The ban proposal aren't going to do much.

 

[dank69]

I think the gun debate needs to be broke down into a cost/benefit analysis. What is the cost, in this debate paid in blood, vs the benefit to society.

As I alluded to much earlier in this thread, that is a purely subjective way of trying to quantify something as well as an appeal to emotion. Some people rate freedom above blood and other rate blood above freedom.

Trying to use cars as a comparison because of their deadly potential is off base, because I NEED a car. Transportation is a backbone of modern society. Deaths resulting from it are unfortunate, but unavoidable because outlawing cars would unravel our society. With that said, cars have become much safer over the years due to advances in technology, so it is conceivable that technology advances will eventually mostly eliminate traffic fatalities.

You don't NEED a car. You could call a taxi. Having your own car saves you time and money if you live in a location without public transportation. But let's forget all that. Let's really pick apart your argument. What if it was proven that a mass murderer was motivated by some violent video game he played? You don't NEED video games, but banning them could have saved some lives. Now what?

Now onto guns, we see the price of gun availability in the news almost every day, sometimes in quite spectacular fashion. Over 11K homicides in 2009. In exchange for 11K men, women, and children every year, the benefit must be pretty awesome right? Wrong. Firstly, technology advances are making guns more deadly, not less.

Wrong, fingerprint triggers are making them safer, to name just one example.

Secondly, if all pistols and assault rifles up and disappeared from this country tomorrow, life would go on, quite literally for many thousands of people murdered with guns every year, and the incidence of violent homicides would plummet greatly. Gun advocates might chime in that they are less "free", but their claims would be no more valid than a non gun owner claiming to be less free if their XBOX is taken away.

Until you find a way to make all guns disappear from the world this doesn't really help anything.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Okay. What do you think the primary purpose of a firearm is (for law-abiding citizens, obviously)?

What you are really asking is what is the primary intent, which is irrelevant. Pistols and assault rifles have one primary purpose, and that is to kill and maim people. I would like a a Howitzer to tow out to the desert and do range practice, which is my intent as a law-abiding citizen. A criminal could take that and decide to use it to level a city block. Is it acceptable for 1000 people to own a Howitzer if only one of those owners is going to go nuts and level a city block? Absolutely not.

 

[blankslate]

Just saying that the answer lies with the punishment of criminals.

Not only punishment of criminals, effectively limiting their access to firearms if they have served time and been released. Cracking down on the black market and enforcing straw purchasing laws would be a good start.

After that figuring out a way of keeping mentally unstable people from firearms is something that should be looked at as well.

 

[dank69]

Restrictions on a car are there to ensure safer operation. Although speed limits on the road depend on a wide variety of factors. A modern sports car is safer on the road at 100mph than a stock muscle car from the 60s early 70s era going the same speed.

Requiring insurance for cars is logical because of the amount of cars on the road and their potential for danger. Firearms can be potentially as dangerous (if not more so) but no insurance is required. That could be argued to defy logic. It is also a difference between guns and cars.

Yes you can kill a person with a car. There are problems with that though such as the damage you're likely to do to the vehicle if your intent is murder.

You are completely avoiding the question. Why does any citizen need a car that can go 90 miles an hour?

 

[blankslate]

I've answered the question.

And you chose not to address the question of why does anyone logically need a car with 200+ hp? or 300? or 500?

You don't. However, a person who obeys the law won't be utilizing all of that horse power on the road except to perhaps pass someone who is driving below the speed limit.

I also mentioned that today sport's cars which are designed to be capable of high speeds are also designed with better brakes, steering, suspension and generally get newer technologies that facilitate the control and safety of the car.

 

[dank69]

I've answered the question.

Okay then. If banning weapons with 30 round mags is okay because nobody needs them then banning cars that go over 90mph is okay because nobody needs them. Banning video games is okay because nobody needs them. Banning cigarettes is okay because nobody needs them. Banning alcohol is okay because nobody needs it. No. Wrong. An item's necessity has zero bearing on whether it should be banned if it poses no danger when used responsibly. It should not be brought into the discussion.

I also mentioned that today sport's cars which are designed to be capable of high speeds are also designed with better brakes, steering, suspension and generally get newer technologies that facilitate the control and safety of the car.

The extra safety features have nothing to do with the conversation. Even very old cars can go 90+.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What you are really asking is what is the primary intent, which is irrelevant.

I think it becomes relevant when people use "primary intent" as a justification for different rules for guns and other dangerous objects.

Pistols and assault rifles have one primary purpose, and that is to kill and maim people.

For criminals, yes. For law-abiding citizens, no.

A guy who keeps a shotgun next to his bed is not doing so because he wants to kill and main people.

A jewelery store that hires an armed guard does not do so hoping the guard will ever shoot anyone.

And so on. Most uses of firearms are defensive, and they are always glossed over in favor of the more damning statistics.

Okay then. If banning weapons with 30 round mags is okay because nobody needs them then banning cars that go over 90mph is okay because nobody needs them.

I'd be perfectly fine with a capacity limit of 30 rounds and mandatory speed limiters set to 70 mph on all cars. Actually, I'd be thrilled with the latter.

Banning video games is okay because nobody needs them.

People don't die from playing video games.

Banning cigarettes is okay because nobody needs them. Banning alcohol is okay because nobody needs it.

Both of those have high taxes and/or restrictions on them, so there's no reason why guns cannot also. (Cigarettes would be banned if our drug laws made any sense.)

 

[jackstar7]

I disagree. I believe the primary function of a firearm is to serve as a deterrent against violence directed at the firearm-holder or one he/she is protecting. The goal is not to have to discharge it unless necessary.

I have to disagree with your assessment of the primary function of a firearm.

It is a projectile delivery system. It's function is to do just that towards whatever it is that the shooter believes should be shot.

If guns were deterrents, then there would be no drug violence at all... as they are vastly well-armed.

 

[jackstar7]

Okay then. If banning weapons with 30 round mags is okay because nobody needs them then banning cars that go over 90mph is okay because nobody needs them. Banning video games is okay because nobody needs them. Banning cigarettes is okay because nobody needs them. Banning alcohol is okay because nobody needs it. No. Wrong. An item's necessity has zero bearing on whether it should be banned if it poses no danger when used responsibly. It should not be brought into the discussion.

What is the responsible use of a 30 round mag? I believe that's the bit missing from this argument.