The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

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.

and a pack of chihuahuas

which one?

* Paul Kersey (musician), Canadian drummer in the rock band Max Webster and The Hunt
* Paul Kersey (actor) (born 1970), American actor in the film Hulk
* Paul Kersey, the fictional main character in the film Death Wish
* Paul Kersey, a French DJ (Radio Monaco)

The trained vs. untrained argument is interesting, because gun owners I've talked to are very pro-training -- they don't think anyone should own a gun without knowing how to use it, and how to handle it safely (i.e. not shoot anyone you don't intend to shoot). But they're split on whether it's OK to require training. Of course, most states don't require any training at all except to get a carry permit. You can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a shotgun without any proof that you've ever so much as looked at one. In Tennessee, there's some movement by hardcore gun people to do away with the carry permits altogether, on the grounds that carrying is just an extension of the constitutional right and shouldn't need special permission. But the state makes money on the permits, and a lot of gun dealers make money running the training programs, so I sort of doubt that'll really get anywhere.

There are also the open-carry zealots, but I don't really see them getting a lot of traction. One guy I talked to said it would be too much hassle to open carry, because inevitably someone will call 911 and say there's a guy with a gun walking down Elm Street, and then the cops are obliged to come and check and make sure the gun is legal and there's a legal carry permit, and so you end up spending a half hour standing around until it all gets sorted out. Plus, carrying openly sort of invites trouble of all kinds, from people who want your gun or people who see you as a threat.

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.

This is otm, and at least some gun owners know it. One guy I talked to basically said, look, I know the statistical likelihood of me ever being in a situation where a gun would be useful is very small. But owning one makes me feel safer. You can't mount a rational argument against that, because it's not operating at a rational level.

btw, if anyone wants to read the views of some (relatively) sane and articulate gun nuts, here's my article. I obviously do not agree with or believe a lot of what they say, but I tried to present their views as fairly as possible. And I got a lot of very nice emails and phone calls from gun owners, mostly just surprised that an alt-weekly wasn't out to get them. So I figure if the zombie apocalypse comes, at least now I have some well-armed people I can call.

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?

― Not the real Village People, Sunday, January 9, 2011 4:03 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark

real answer - CCW is a distinct subculture within gun ownership (and open carry is an even smaller, more fringe subculture that regular gun owners look down on), and its not something you can get every firearm enthusiast to defend. just like with every cause, there are factions within factions that make life harder for everyone with their craziness. being american doesnt automatically mean one understands 'gun culture' which is why asking a bunch of miffed lefties on ILX to explain it will prob not get u anywhere, assuming ur question is sincere

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?

the pro-gun people I know think this, yes