The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

enhhhhhhh milo, the concealment thing is actually pretty central to handgun violence, i'd hazard. you can't shove a .308 down the front of your pants and walk into a convenience store like it isnt a thing. it might be "intellectually dishonest," but it certainly doesn't ignore how handguns are used

blunt objects due for a comeback

this isnt about "psychological issues"--i am equally scared of all guns--this is about the fact that the vast vast majority of gun deaths in this country are handgun deaths

blunt objects due for a comeback

― Princess TamTam, Monday, January 10, 2011 4:09 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

I'm not sure why you think I've disagreed that handguns are used more often. Guess what: there are more of them. And they are more easily concealable.

But guess what, once you've banned handguns, people who wish to do bad things will start using rifles instead, because you've left them available. Do you not comprehend that rifles are actually more dangerous than handguns when it comes down to ballistics?

theres no question that the world would be better off if handguns didnt exist - everyone should have an AK though, for armed insurrection

Because policy isn't spiritual. If your argument is that guns are evil because of their one true purpose, make that argument and leave statistics and public safety out.
If your argument is that guns pose a risk to the health and safety of the general population, leave out whatever you think their purpose is.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:03 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

also I really really don't get this point - why can't it be both? why can't the fact that guns are designed to be dangerous go hand in hand with referencing statistics that show a correlation between gun ownership & homicide. idgi

it's ridiculous that we're having the argument 'ban all guns' vs 'don't ban guns' cause on a political level that's never the fight. and I mean, we're having that argument cause some of us do actually believe the former, but that's never been the real-life issue. in reality it's 'very incremental regulation on how easy it is to buy guns' vs. 'any regulation, ever, is bad' and we can't even get that cause of (one interpretation of) the second amendment.

i think we should just ship all of our handguns to alaska and let them slowly take each other out

But guess what, once you've banned handguns, people who wish to do bad things will start using rifles instead, because you've left them available. Do you not comprehend that rifles are actually more dangerous than handguns when it comes down to ballistics?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:10 PM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i still dont see why this is an effective argument for keeping handguns legal instead of being an excellent argument to ban all guns

An AR-15 can easily be concealed inside of a gym bag or under a coat. Or carried in a backpack in two pieces and assembled once inside of whatever building one wants to do bad things in. As can any number of other rifles in different calibers.

nb: AR-15s are used as "high-power competitive rifles" these days, along with M1 Garands and bolt actions and such

Do you not comprehend that rifles are actually more dangerous than handguns when it comes down to ballistics?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:10 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yeah and that rifles would not really function the same way in all situations in which handguns are currently now used? like okay I get it, ban handguns and you're still gonna have your bell tower shooters. but it's gonna make it harder for casual robberies and other instances of gun violence that depend on the metaphysical factors of a handgun versus a rifle.

i still dont see why this is an effective argument for keeping handguns legal instead of being an excellent argument to ban all guns

i dont want to ban those guns because "they spook me" i want to ban those guns because they are currently being used to kill thousands of epople a year

in reality it's 'very incremental regulation on how easy it is to buy guns' vs. 'any regulation, ever, is bad' and we can't even get that cause of (one interpretation of) the second amendment.

but the real situation is that there is actually quite a lot of regulation of guns, and there have been plenty of moves in that direction, it just seems like that gets ignored all the time by people that are in favor of a complete ban on firearms.

im not even bothering to type xpost anymore btw

that's not even getting into shotguns - take a pistol grip shotgun and a hacksaw and you've got something ~12-15 inches long total. Very not difficult to conceal if you want to take part in "casual robberies."

or shorter, if said casual robber is a helluva masochist

ban shotguns

like i dunno if yr trying to come at gun control from a by-the-numbers/statistics sorta angle, i'd say that the particulars of what makes a handgun appealing to a murderer are pretty u&k. i mean basically i'm of the mind where i think that policy should be shaped for the greatest benefit to the public good (less murders!) while impinging ppl's rights as little as possible (sorry dudes we do actually have the 2nd amendment, no way around it). if we make it so that ppl gotta get hella vetted to own a handgun, and take a course, and re-up their certification, and ban their resale at gun shows (not sure how exactly that could be legal, like in a non-2nd amendment constitutional way), then i'm all for it. yr competitive shooters can still get their weenie .22s, yr collectors can get their stupid desert eagles, and criminals will find it more difficult (though not impossible) to get 9mms.

if all of a sudden there's a huge uptick in gun homicide by varmint rifle, then i guess we'll have to move on to that debate. but as it is, calling for an outright ban of handguns is politically insane and probably unconstitutional, esp when its likely that other legislation could be enacted to keep them out of the hands of murderers and in the hands of people with stupid hobbies you hate but that are ultimately pretty fucking benign

xps lol i am so behind w/e, time for a beer

Fish and Game agencies control hunting licenses, and these licenses have certain numbers of kills attached to them that you are legally allowed to carry out, and there are a certain number of licenses given out each season (usually through a lottery system). I think that the fish and game departments probably know more about the deer populations under their jurisdiction than random ILXors who have never used a gun in their life let alone gone hunting....

But sure we can turn this thread into that argument... we might as well argue about prescribed burns in forests in that case, though...

this thread is moving way too fast... like a speeding bullet!

"ban all guns" is a terrible and impossible idea, IMO, but it's much more rationally defensible than "ban handguns, because then people will stop killing each other"

but the real situation is that there is actually quite a lot of regulation of guns, and there have been plenty of moves in that direction, it just seems like that gets ignored all the time by people that are in favor of a complete ban on firearms.

right except our ideas of 'quite a lot of regulation' are different, you're like the wall street guy who thinks that finance is overregulated right now.

"people who wish to do bad things will start using rifles instead"

i don't think this would necessarily happen, at least for crimes that don't fit the rifle narrative.

"ban all guns" is a terrible and impossible idea, IMO, but it's much more rationally defensible than "ban handguns, because then people will stop killing each other"

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:17 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah thats def my argument thanks for summarizing it so efficiently

right except our ideas of 'quite a lot of regulation' are different, you're like the wall street guy who thinks that finance is overregulated right now.

first part is prob true, second part is a cheap shot strawman deal but heyo, thats why this thread is always so darn much fun

i believe i pointed this out in another thread, but deer hunting is a literal necessity in this country - they're giant rats whose population can no longer be kept in check by diminished predator populations

We have this problem with possums and yet theyre still a protected spieces - you arent allowed to trap or poison em let alone SHOOT em.

What crimes fit the handgun narrative that can't be accomplished by a rifle?

and milo, i honestly don't think that corralling handguns w/legislation would mean that criminals would just move on to rifles, and certainly not with the same "success" (ugh). i obv have no data for that, it just seems...intuitive? like for real stick up kids and gangbangers are gonna go buy hunting rifles at wal-mart?

If your criminal activity depends on the power of a firearm and handguns are gone - do you just give up the drug trade, or do you find a new weapon to suit your needs?

We have this problem with possums and yet theyre still a protected spieces - you arent allowed to trap or poison em let alone SHOOT em.

and yet in nz they're vermin and killing them is encouraged, gyeesh.

Still can't believe firearms are sold at Wal-mart. We can't even buy alcohol at a 7-11 ffs.

not banning dangerous things because people might use other dangerous things is pretty dumb

i am going to look at this thread tomorrow and be so mad at myself

Would violence levels remain absolutely the same? Probably not. But criminal firearm activity would most certainly begin to incorporate rifles and shotguns where handguns sufficed before.

not banning dangerous things because people might use other dangerous things is pretty dumb

Playing ban-a-mole is pretty dumb.

re: handgun-specific narratives
you can't do that sideways gangsta thing with a rifle, or maybe you could, but does it look as fierce?

we seem to have a lot of supposed liberals who would sit at the right of the current supreme court in here - the idea that the 2nd amendment allows people to privately possess firearms is not even remotely consensus in constitutional/legal cirlces. we just happen to have a really conservative SC

like the reason that handguns are popular w/criminals is because they are ideally suited to street crime! it's not why they were invented, but it is disingenuous to suggest that in the context of a mugging or a shoot-out outside a club or a daylight execution or w/e that a rifle wouldn't make the whole thing waaaaay more difficult to pull off without drawing attention. i mean i am basically sympathetic to yr posish here but c'mon man

xps

kev otm

ewww "supposed liberals," kev? dude kinda figured you were better than that.

http://www.tucsonguns.com/pic/2008-02/01-29-08-0009.jpg

Stunningly easy to create out of a perfectly legal shotgun when handguns are banned.

What crimes fit the handgun narrative that can't be accomplished by a rifle?

Crimes where you are able to conceal your weapon until you can bust it out and shoot someone at point blank range and continue firing into a a crowd of innocents. I thought this was pretty fucking obvious, myself...

also Milo, shotguns have at most 4-6 rounds, not 30.

milo is continuing to make a terrific arg in favor of banning all guns

milo giving us solid reasons to ban shotguns and rifles later down the line

lol xp

but gbx, if handguns are unavailable, are criminal gangs going to just stop doing 'daylight executions' and 'robberies'? Or are they going to find another way to get their firepower?

"Shoot-out outside a club" is not the most common criminal use for firearms.

uh its a little more accurate due to shot to say that shotguns have 400-600 very small rounds honestly. xposts