The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3246 of them)

Once you get past the invasive method, the more serious problem with your argument is that you're not doing anything effective, just putting up hurdles because they make you feel a little better.

As I said at the start, the only feasible form of 'gun control' (past what exists now) requires that you attack manufacturers (eliminate civilian arms, period) rather than end users.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:52 (seventeen years ago) link

I think it would be effective. Show me your evidence of why it wouldn't be.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:53 (seventeen years ago) link

o. nate, you do realize that your system wouldn't do anything about the millions of firearms already in public hands, right?

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:54 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah i dunno about this test thing anymore

i still say we should just make certain crimes *more* illegal - i mean, it works for drunk driving, right?

how about if you get caught stalking or involved in domestic abuse you have to attend night classes just like a drunk driver? and if you don't you can't ... use the internet or something.

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:54 (seventeen years ago) link

o. nate, you do realize that your system wouldn't do anything about the millions of firearms already in public hands, right?

Yes, I realize that, but you've got to start somewhere. Eventually, the screening would be retro-actively applied to current licensed gun owners - or we could just wait a generation until they age off the books.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:55 (seventeen years ago) link

how is checking to see somebody's not a raging pathological psychopath "invasive" ? i'm sick of libertarians deploying this word to cloud any issue where the suggestion is made that there's some governmental oversite – it's bullshit. why should we be compelled to issue firearms to people with histories of psychic disturbance? we don't give licenses to high-risk epileptics.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:56 (seventeen years ago) link

Dude Milo like I said, I totally agree with your concerns about privacy -- they're completely legitimate. All I said was that the government does currently screen people in similar ways, so it's not like it'd be philosophically revolutionary. Your drivers' license drug test is a funny example, because your local DMV is poking around administering medical screenings ON SITE -- they test your vision!

The issue of medical/psychological records drives those concerns home pretty well. Apart from that, though, I'm not CERTAIN intense non-medical screening would be some kind of huge scary revolutionary move. We already do cursory criminal-record checks. The government screens people not just for sensitive jobs, but for licensing to do various things, right? Repeat DMV eye-test.

So yeah, I'm agreeing with you here that there are legitimate worries to be had about all this -- I was mostly just pointing out that this wouldn't be some crazy philosophical leap from stuff government already does.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:56 (seventeen years ago) link

This isn't usually the kind of argument I'd make, fan of standardized testing that I am, but does anyone else see the slippery slope here? You're going to trust a 'system' to keep this from becoming terribly exclusionary and racist?

The problem with mandating anything like this is the inevitable trojan horse scenario, and o nate's 'system' idea would potentially open the floodgates to even more civil rights violations.

I mean, shit - polygraph tests?? For INNOCENT people? Pardon me, but fuck you.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:56 (seventeen years ago) link

I think it would be effective. Show me your evidence of why it wouldn't be.

You're the proposer, hoss. Show me the number of gun deaths caused by individuals who would be adjudicated 'mentally incapable of owning a firearm' under your proposed system, and exactly what your system encompasses?

Remy, was the VT shooter ever judged to be a "raging pathological psychopath"? Were the individuals who supplied the Columbine kids?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:57 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean, shit - polygraph tests?? For INNOCENT people? Pardon me, but fuck you.

Fuck you and your gun too. If you wanted a job that required a high security clearance, you'd have to pass a polygraph test. How is applying for ownership of a deadly weapon any different in principal?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:59 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost

and how do you determine raging pathological psychopaths anyway?

that's a diagnosis that's usually made only when it's too late, like after somebody's eaten their moms liver for breakfast

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:59 (seventeen years ago) link

Remy, was the VT shooter ever judged to be a "raging pathological psychopath"? Were the individuals who supplied the Columbine kids?

not to my knowledge. but that doesn't mean a massive number of other gun crime perps wouldn't be.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:00 (seventeen years ago) link

How many, remy?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:01 (seventeen years ago) link

Yes, I realize that, but you've got to start somewhere. Eventually, the screening would be retro-actively applied to current licensed gun owners - or we could just wait a generation until they age off the books.

-- o. nate, Friday, April 20, 2007 1:55 PM (1 minute ago)

A) How exactly would you find these people to retro-screen them, how willing would they be to voluntarily submit to this, would there be punishments enacted if you were caught unscreened, etc. etc. logistical nightmare.
B) It's going to take a lot longer than a generation, given that guns don't have a shelf life, and people are allowed to will them to their kids, because they are possessions, after all, and often worth a lot of money.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:01 (seventeen years ago) link

I think the suggestion about attacking the manufacturers/market is a better move. As Justen points out, it wouldn't affect the bazillion guns currently in circulation, but it could conceivably keep the problem from getting *worse*. Guns do age and become ineffectual, albeit over a long period of time. Perhaps it would be best to take the long view and apply legislation now that would have more concrete ramifications several generations from now.

many x-posts

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:03 (seventeen years ago) link

raging pathological psychopaths was hyperbolic. i thought that much would be obvious. but the point stands: why can't the state/federal government screen high risk candidates from the purchase of guns? suicidal depressives? convicted spousal abusers? those who have been institutionalized for X number of years out of Y years. i'm precluded from giving blood because of the time i spent in England. i don't consider it "invasive" to take my medical history, i consider it prudent.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:03 (seventeen years ago) link

261, milo. how should i know? don't be a jerk about it.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:04 (seventeen years ago) link

this thread has taught me nothing except that gun collectors are giant harmless nerds who probably just like to shoot at photos of Saruman. also, maybe there should be a slightly tighter screening process on those who have already been noted as being a danger to themselves and others at some point in the recent past. at this point i don't think we can realistically do anything about the guns out there considering there millions of them out there, with probably hundreds of thousands unaccounted for by any governing body.

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:05 (seventeen years ago) link

A) How exactly would you find these people to retro-screen them, how willing would they be to voluntarily submit to this, would there be punishments enacted if you were caught unscreened, etc. etc. logistical nightmare.
B) It's going to take a lot longer than a generation, given that guns don't have a shelf life, and people are allowed to will them to their kids, because they are possessions, after all, and often worth a lot of money.

No one's saying it would be easy. But who are we as a country if we can't face difficult challenges every once in a while?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:05 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm not calling it hard, I'm calling it impossible.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:07 (seventeen years ago) link

remy, is correct, there IS a powerful and overwhelming body of evidence that households where there is a gun and a history of domestic abuse tend to end in fatal shootings, ditto households with drug abuse

i don't know though, maybe you *already* can't get a gun if you have drug convictions or domestic abuse complaints agianst you.

so maybe instead of going for stricter gun control we could look at factors that exacerbate gun violence and work on those?

i am sure even the libertarian in roger wouldn't in theory argue with more federal + state funding for outpatient therapy for drug + domestic violence criminals?

who knows, this might be a worthier challenge than making guns illegal

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:07 (seventeen years ago) link

why can't the state/federal government screen high risk candidates from the purchase of guns?

It already does. It just is not, generally speaking, as invasive as you're hoping.

Define "high risk."

convicted spousal abusers

Already on the list and denied ownership. In fact, if you get a restraining order put on you for domestic violence, the police can (rightly) confiscate your guns in the meantime.

those who have been institutionalized for X number of years out of Y years.

Can't remember if that's actually part of the background check, but it is one of the questions asked on an ATF form (and thus a federal crime to lie about).

suicidal depressives?

What other things should clinical depressives be denied? Cars? Knives? Medicines?

261, milo. how should i know? don't be a jerk about it.

I'm not being a jerk - you're throwing out that lots of gun violence is perpetrated by high-risk 'psychological' targets - I don't believe that to be the case and have yet to see anyone show that it is.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:08 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost

Haha seriously, how come nobody here is getting all Nugenty over the fact that I've been issued a special second-rate license on which the government dictates that I'm not allowed to drive without my glasses on?! Why are they all up in my private myopia issues??

I'm not sure we need vastly expanded gun-purchase screening, though -- we'd do better with stricter enforcement of the types of screening we already have. (The only way criminal-history scanning fails is that a lot of the warning-sign crimes -- like threats or domestic violence -- are interpersonal crimes where people drop charges or things get plead down, and so there's no concrete record of trial and conviction.)

Hahaha Nate one of the funny truths of the gun-control conversation is that you just don't dream of taking away weapons people already own, because there is some very small wacko percentage of them who are not kidding about the cold dead hands, and they are, umm, armed. (Please do not interpret as a slur on the non-small non-wacko percentage who'd be indignant but not get all Ruby Ridge about it.)

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:08 (seventeen years ago) link

glasses dont kill people nabisco, people kill people

― Mr. Que, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:09 (seventeen years ago) link

if a lot of gun violence is not being perpetrated by high risk types, that's even more depressing w/r/t society

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:09 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.reedsway.com/charlton_heston2.jpg

guns don't kill people, soylent green is people

― Milton Parker, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:10 (seventeen years ago) link

sorry

― Milton Parker, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:10 (seventeen years ago) link

"Guns do age and become ineffectual, albeit over a long period of time"

Another wild claim stated as absolute truth! Has ILE always been this factually challenged or have I been sipping too many Long Island Ice Teas in the wee computer hours?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:10 (seventeen years ago) link

Hahaha Nate one of the funny truths of the gun-control conversation is that you just don't dream of taking away weapons people already own, because there is some very small wacko percentage of them who are not kidding about the cold dead hands, and they are, umm, armed. (Please do not interpret as a slur on the non-small non-wacko percentage who'd be indignant but not get all Ruby Ridge about it.)

Well we don't have to go pry the guns out of their hands all at once. This could be phased in gradually over a relatively long period of time. It would start by issuing a new class of gun license for people who have passed the screening, eventually the old classes of gun licenses would be phased out and people would have to apply for the new kind. If they refused, then, well, they'd be unlicensed. We wouldn't necessarily send the police to confiscate their guns.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:12 (seventeen years ago) link

maybe you *already* can't get a gun if you have drug convictions or domestic abuse complaints agianst you.

this is indeed the case. Enforcement is a huge issue here though - funny that that's a common tack of the NRA, to argue that there's already plenty of laws that just aren't being enforced properly. Which is totally true, but the argument is used to misdirect the debate away from the possibility of enacting any additional laws.

and yes manalishi I know what the fuck I'm talking about with old guns - no one holds up a liquor store with a cap-and-ball rifle for a reason.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:12 (seventeen years ago) link

(cap and ball MUSKET I should say)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:12 (seventeen years ago) link

"i am sure even the libertarian in roger wouldn't in theory argue with more federal + state funding for outpatient therapy for drug + domestic violence criminals?"

In Roger's America, heal thyself, friend.

Or, you know...get a rope. Either way.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:13 (seventeen years ago) link

LOL same to you, buddy

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:14 (seventeen years ago) link

Old weapons do age, but generally only become ineffective due to use. A modern rifle or handgun will outlast us all, and probably our great-great-great grandchildren, if it's not being shot regularly.

Haha seriously, how come nobody here is getting all Nugenty over the fact that I've been issued a special second-rate license on which the government dictates that I'm not allowed to drive without my glasses on?! Why are they all up in my private myopia issues??

As John said way way back - your driving privileges are (legally) more akin to the ability to carry a loaded firearm on the street. In which case you will be tested and given restrictions.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:14 (seventeen years ago) link

I've said this a bunch of times already, but there is a distinction between "license to operate" and "license to purchase", and certainly "license to own", and as long as people keep flipping back and forth according to the point they're trying to make, we'll all keep circling the same things again and again.

Which is going to happen anyway, but at least it'll be more interesting to read my way.

xpost uh shakey, you might have missed my point earlier re: high power shooting and an unmodified model from 1913, but maintained guns don't wear out.

xposts yup, milo is right.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:14 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.reedsway.com/charlton_heston2.jpg

I has a gun
I has cold hands
I has need bullets
?

― StanM, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:16 (seventeen years ago) link

in terms of "ineffectual" I was thinking more of how weapons tend to get regularly outmoded by, um, deadlier weapons.

Like 50 years from now the standard, most effective weapon for killing people probably won't be a handgun.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:16 (seventeen years ago) link

you know like no one is using unmodified rifles from 1913 to wantonly murder people, commit crimes, etc.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:18 (seventeen years ago) link

Presumably the new class of gun license would also be checked any time someone wanted to purchase ammo. So people with the old kind of license would eventually not be able to purchase ammo.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:19 (seventeen years ago) link

Haha dudes I was mostly just being funny about the DMV vision test, but if your response to that is "driving is more like carrying concealed weapons," does that suggest you're fine with psychological testing and opening medical records for c&c permits, or telling people they have to have psychological testing in order to get them? (That's a genuine question, BTW, not a rhetorical one.)

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:19 (seventeen years ago) link

I've never had a psych or medical test for my driver's license. I go up, put on my glasses, and look in the little vision box.

A Texas concealed handgun license is quite a bit more stringent than that. 8 hours of classes, a shooting proficiency test, fingerprints sent to the state police and the FBI for background checks, etc..

My father's got held up for three or four extra months because he'd been arrested for fighting in California. In 1967.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:22 (seventeen years ago) link

I may be mistaken about this, but I don't think ammo has as long as shelf-life as a gun, so the license-check on ammo part would help to address the legacy gun problem.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:23 (seventeen years ago) link

I wouldn't use old ammo.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:24 (seventeen years ago) link

Milo you've been tricked: that little vision box is an eye test! It is secretly assessing whether or not you have untreated DIZEEZES of the EYE and BRANE! RUN!!!

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:25 (seventeen years ago) link

Nope, ammo doesn't last quite as long. Problem is, you can make it yourself, so that won't work either.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:28 (seventeen years ago) link

You can't make it from scratch, you need to purchase certain things like primers, gunpowder, casings, etc. These would also require a license check.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:29 (seventeen years ago) link

jesus christ, who knew guns were so boring?

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:29 (seventeen years ago) link

I still haven't seen any statistics on the number of gun-related deaths caused by mentally unstable people.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:29 (seventeen years ago) link

ORLY? I wonder if anyone already has any of those things? I wonder if the casings are reusable? Primers and powder, properly stored, last for a long, long time.

xposts

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:30 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean, shit - polygraph tests?? For INNOCENT people? Pardon me, but fuck you.

1) polygraph tests are completely useless at anything besides getting people to confess shit

2) everyone in america having their records accessed or being questioned by police is INNOCENT until conviction

― and what, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 3146 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.