The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

also agree that overthrowing some hypothetical future tyranny with handguns is fantasy-land.

yeah it's such bullshit that our soldiers and marines waste time with handguns.

tams do u own any guns

― deejeuner sur l'herb (nakhchivan), Sunday, January 9, 2011 2:32 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

nah but my friend does and ive gone shootin w/him b4 its p kewl

tbh i do think marginalized groups like homos and mexicans should embrace gun ownership, cuz the cops aint savin ur ass from shit

xp I wasn't directing that at you sleeve, just trying to drive my point home about how I think there is more potential for a populist anti-handgun sentiment than some people may think...

Personally, my only experience with guns is with BB-guns and .22 rifles with sniper scopes my friends and I used for marksmanship competitions amongst ourselves. I'm not going to argue that shooting a gun isn't fun, or can't be a perfectly harmless sport/pastime -- cause it can be.

When I hear an asshole like Rand Paul bring up the hoary ol "guns don't kill people; people do" adage, I want to ask him what this guy would have used to injure or kill all these people without a gun.

was talking about 2nd amendment private militia nutball types, not actual military ops. (xp to Kerm)

xp gallon of gasoline, bunch of match heads.

that might b a little less subtle to carry in w/ u tho

yup just got my protected 2nd amendment barrel of petrol

dont mind me

how do u feel abt *concealed* tanks of gasoline?

sleeve: if the actual military sees a use for handguns, that kinda pokes a hole in the argument that they're useless in an insurgency against a tyrannical government's actual military.

in America we mostly just have to live with widespread gun ownership

I agree with this, tipsy.

Instead of yearning for ways to make handguns illegal, which is not going to happen in my lifetime no matter how many horrific crimes are committed, it seems much better to follow a strategy similar to that pursued by anti-abortion groups, where you shave away at gun ownership by imposing requirements that taken individually strike the public as being sensible, and which tend to winnow out the more irresponsible or casual gun owners.

Foremost among these new requirements should be increasing the training a person must have before acquiring a gun. The NRA should welcome this one, as it provides most of the gun safety training classes for the general public. They would see it as an opportunity to harvest more members and to increase their revenue stream. The trick is to keep tightening the requirements, adding more incrementally, until the burden of them dissuades the casual owner from even trying to buy a gun.

lol kerm do u really think ur handgun is going to help u overthrow the boot of tyranny

glwt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb

this might also work

Ban knapsacks.

Ban kegs!

(That's go over worse than banning guns.)

It did not work out well the last time.

haha yeah

I want to ask him what this guy would have used to injure or kill all these people without a gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing

There's just something I'm not totally comfortable with about the overall idea that passing more laws and having more restrictions is worth making people safer (or whether it even does). I think as far as the handgun issue goes it's like cigarettes, the harm is so well documented at this point that I don't really care about more restrictive legislation. However, the general mindset is not one I agree with, and it's kinda scary to me how it got expressed in such a nakedly authoritarian fashion earlier in these two threads.

x-post Not a lot of impulsive bomb planting at supermarket meet and greets. I mean, yeah, he could have packed a U-Haul with explosives and taken down the whole building, too. But he didn't.

Banning guns is impossible. That's not even a question, tbh.

Most modern gun restrictions have been pointless. Know what the difference is between a 'hunting rifle' and a 'sniper rifle'? None whatsoever - until recently the US military was using the exact same rifle (Remington 700 action in .308) as hunters of large-ish game (big deer, elk, etc.).
The Assault Weapons Ban banned cosmetic features that didn't make even a slight bit of difference in how the guns functioned.

Now you're just moving the goalposts, Josh.

Not at all. There are any number of big bad things that would kill a lot of people. But most of them require lots of planning and all are outright illegal. Which is why shootings happen all the time, but 40-lb pipe bombs do not.

banning guns isn't impossible - trying to convince some people that banning guns is possible is impossible

Mass shootings do not "happen all the time."

I view fear of mass shootings (and using them as the impetus for policy) about the same as I do fear of being caught in a terrorist act (post-9/11 paranoia) or needing to carry a gun with you everywhere because of a fear of being caught in a VA Tech situation. These events are so random, unlikely and statistically insignifcant that we should not use them as the basis for policy.

(one caveat to to the AWB restrictions - 10 round magazines vs. 30 - though I don't know that that had any meaningful impact)

people don't need guns

I never said "mass" shootings happen all the time - that's truly moving the goalposts - but multiple homicides do occur all the time.

Most modern gun restrictions have been pointless.

A ban that concentrates on the object (the gun) and hinges upon small differences in design will obv be pointless. The only real watershed points in gun design are between sidearms and long arms, and between semi-automatic and automatic. However, restrictions based on on differences between potential owners, such as felon or non-felon, sane or insane, are not pointless. The same would apply to trained and untrained.

Banning guns is impossible. You cannot confiscate every legally owned gun in the United States. It is phyically (and politically) impossible. This would require house to house searches - because, guess what, the government has no record of the ownership of any gun, or who's bought a gun.
I live in a state where I can sell a gun to another citizen of Texas privately, without any kind of record keeping. How are they to know that I didn't sell all of them to a stranger at a gun show?

I never said "mass" shootings happen all the time - that's truly moving the goalposts - but multiple homicides do occur all the time.

do you have a tattoo banning guns is impossible

There's just something I'm not totally comfortable with about the overall idea that passing more laws and having more restrictions is worth making people safer (or whether it even does). I think as far as the handgun issue goes it's like cigarettes, the harm is so well documented at this point that I don't really care about more restrictive legislation. However, the general mindset is not one I agree with, and it's kinda scary to me how it got expressed in such a nakedly authoritarian fashion earlier in these two threads.

― sleeve, Sunday, January 9, 2011 2:06 PM

Other than second-hand smoke I cannot see how cigarettes are even slightly comparable to handguns. And legislation about second-hand smoke has been a good thing imo. And I can't see how there's even a question about whether or not restricting handguns will make people any safer. I'd say that the records of countries with handgun bands pretty much speak for themselves. And still reeling over the idea that it's "nakedly authoritarian" to think that handguns should be banned/restricted, especially when no one seems to think it's particuarly authoritarian to ban and restrict other deadly weapons. No one thinks they live in a police state because they can't drive an armed tank down the expressway or can't go to the deli with a grenade or can't take their crossbow to a playground.

and the comeback to private sales and record keeping - initiate them now - in no way controls the ~200 million guns legally in private hands today.

Smoking's a useful comparison, in many ways, as far as enforcement goes. Who would have guessed 50 years ago that something as ubiquitous and portable as cigarettes would be banned in virtually all public spaces, inside and often outside as well? But they did it.

And I can't see how there's even a question about whether or not restricting handguns will make people any safer. I'd say that the records of countries with handgun bands pretty much speak for themselves.

I guess one can easily argue that cigarettes in public are not illegal - smoking them is, just as firing guns is - so that's where the comparison falls apart badly. But still!

Britain's violent crime rate remains pretty nasty IIRC

their murder rate isn't

And yet a ban would hinder a lot of impulse gun sales, and also affect ease of trade/purchase. It's legal even now to seize guns from illegal sales, and a ban on handguns would mean that all sales would be illegal and subject to seizure. And that anyone who is caught with a gun is already a criminal. multiple x-posts

do you have a tattoo banning guns is impossible

banning knives is impossible

banning milo z is impossible

And yet a ban would hinder a lot of impulse gun sales,

pointing out why a solution isn't workable doesn't mean you're in favor of the problem.

xps to conrad

I cannot see how cigarettes are even slightly comparable to handguns.

um because the harm to society at large from both those things is well documented and pretty unassailable at this point? like I said?

and we already live in a fucking police state, I realize I am in the minority here on that though. so by all means, give the government more power over you if you think it'll make you safer.

Maybe if all gun owners were made to a sign a pledge promising not to shoot anybody? Would that work?

ban ammo

um because the harm to society at large from both those things is well documented and pretty unassailable at this point? like I said?

But it's a flawed comparison, personal liberty vs. personal safety. Now that there a second-hand smoking bans, smoking people aren't infringing upon me at all. And I'm never going to buy cigarettes for myself. But whether or not I buy a gun for myself doesn't change the fact that I might one day die from gunfire by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.