The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

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.

Yeah and i might get hit by a chunk of falling satellite, but it is incredibly unlikely.

It is probably a statistical fact that you are more likely to be shot than killed by a chunk of falling satellite.

^ my FIL owned/s a rifle (in UK) and narrowly missed being hit by falling satellite or something recently

NB I am totally anti-gun, just thought this was funny in context

And it's also statistically accurate that i am more likely to get hit by a car. My point is that the chances of a non gun owner being shot by a stray bullet are extremely remote.

"extremely remote" basically meaningless though. Don't give a shit if my (hypothetical) family member who was shot is an outlier or not.

what's your point

Proposed slogan: "Let's keep handguns safe, legal, and rare."

"Let's keep handguns safe, legal, and rarer than out of control cars but not as rare as chunks of falling satellite."

milo otm

Alright, I'm completely clueless when it comes to the gun control argument, so sorry if this sounds trolly. I'm from England but living in the US and as soon as I moved here my friends were like "are you getting a gun?!!". Can someone explain clearly (and without bringing up other non-weapons that may or may not kill you) what the benefits are of allowing people to have and carry handguns, because I don't understand. Also, if you are pro-gun, would you think it was fine if every single person in the country who was technically allowed to carry a gun, was carrying one at all times?

benefits - feel like a badass

people won't make fun of your hairstyle

• don't hafta take no shit

can do the "dance!" thing where you shoot at people's feet

# of innocuous things that make you irrationally angry would start to decline

fun like a muscle car

my cousin and his wife were victims of gun violence

how do they feel about the internet backlash?

they are v strong ppl

Most of the "benefits" are imaginary for the vast majority of people, but imaginations are powerful things and the gun industry has harnessed them as the engine for its sales.

Also, getting burgled or invaded by other people who have guns is a pretty powerful thing and sort of stupid to ignore. You need to have some kind of plan in place in the case that this happens. For some people that plan involves firearms for home defense. Not for me, but I've seriously considered it.

*plans invasion of kkvgz's house*

If you're not actually Paul Kersey in real life then owning a handgun is basically like owning a collectible fantasy sword only a lot more dangerous to yourself and your loved ones.

xp: I have a bitchin' alarm system.