The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

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

the idea that the 2nd amendment allows people to privately possess firearms is not even remotely consensus in constitutional/legal cirlces.

also, really? like, citation please? i mean say what you will about handguns or w/e, but i am pretty certain that even an expansive reading of the constitution couldn't conclude that the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically allow for people to bear arms? as alfred suggested, it seems about as cut and dried as the 1st!

xp lol jj gun nerdery is prob nagl itt

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

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:25 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

haha dude

I've repeatedly said that 'ban all guns' is impossible and a bad idea, but logically defensible. 'Ban some guns but leave all these other really fuckin' dangerous ones in play' is impossible, a bad idea AND logically indefensible.

xxxxxpost that is a good point jjustin, but if you are using a shotgun like a pistol primarily the slug will hit before any shrapnel has time to spread very wide...

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

'well regulated', 'militia' = a lot of room for interpretation

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

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:28 PM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark

not if ur using ~sluuuuuuuugs~

i would be way more terrified by a dude w/a shotgun than somebody with a handgun, srsly

xpost actually wrt a sawed off shotgun the spread is much wider and immediate

the fact that shotguns are called that because they shoot 'shot' is one of my favorite things btw

and yeah ok "club shoot-out" might not account for a lot of deaths, but "gang shoot-outs" prob account for all the tragic deaths-by-stray bullets that we are all horrified by

also dude involved custom streetsweepers are militaman sunday projects, not ready-to-hand weapons for teenagers

I thought sawed off shotguns WERE illegal, otherwise WTF was ruby ridge all about?

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

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:28 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yeah but it is a use? also would probably make the "5 year old finds dad's handgun and shoots himself w/ it" narrative harder as well. I get that you're saying some types of criminal activity will not really be negatively impacted but that doesn't mean other types won't?

The Congresswoman would not likely have survived a 12-gauge or rifle round to the head. The difference in even good 'defensive' handgun ammo and shotguns and rifles is immense.

no yeah sawed off shotguns are illegal, but since we were invoking concealable alternatives in the absence of handguns i thought that was a useful clarification

if certain guns carry with it less mental roadblocks to committing certain heinous acts, then it's totally defensible to target those guns versus other objects that are mechanically as lethal, even if the distinction is as cosmetic as one being painted grey and the other being painted in pink and rainbows.

also dude involved custom streetsweepers are militaman sunday projects, not ready-to-hand weapons for teenagers

Sawed-off shotguns are highly illegal without ATF paperwork (similar to getting a suppressor or purchasing a machine gun)

i dont really see how any gun in the hands of somebody who wants to commit a heinous act is going to have more or less mental roadblock potential

So someone intent on killing someone else isn't going to do if the only the only gun available to them is the My Little Pony edition?

like the situation is kinda already there, i dont think "oh shit i will look way less cool with a shotgun/pink glock/whatever" is going to change anything