The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

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

say hello to my little hello kitty glock

it's just....you can seriously restrict future access to handguns w/o banning them, and it seems v plausible indeed that accidental deaths/suicides will fall, deaths 2/2 street crime will fall (in the "perp v. civilian" category..."perp v. perp" will likely remain unchanged), and so on. the case that handguns are more dangerous because they are more convenient than, like, ballistically deadly, is pretty sound imo

re: Kev's 'fake liberal bullshit'
I'm a dues-paying ACLU, NARAL and IWW supporter. I voted for Obama, Kerry and Nader. (pretty sure re: Kerry, the only third-party candidate was Libertarian, fuck that)

this was my Christmas present to myself:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5241/5258493171_71dd5e445a.jpg
DSC_2559 by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

tbh i think that a lot of that assumption is bound up in the idea that gun violence is inherently driven by raging testosterone, when in actuality its just as likely to be a cold and calculated act of utility, not aggression per se xposts

per sex posts

it's not necessarily about macho cool.
if anyone is nervous at all about doing a thing, they can draw strength from a cultural script to follow, and my little pony massacres are an unwritten script.

can't it be both jjjusten? like sure the cold and calculated acts of utility will go stay the same but maybe the raging testosterone ones will go down?

How did that work for the largely cosmetic federal assault weapons ban?

i remember being amazed, having heard abt "the right to bear arms" for so long, at finding out that the amendment starts "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the health of the state" or whatever it is

i mean, are e-cigarettes having an easy time catching on, despite having nicotine on its side? vape-ing is just culturally... weird.

tbh i have no idea, but i'm guessing that ppl in the US using assault rifles to ~actually kill people~ are more in the cold/calculated camp (ie - their "job" requires owning an assault rifle), so yeah they're gonna get their hands on em anyway. teens dont find dad's uzi and accidentally mow down their friends, and ppl don't often kill themselves with AKs, you know

if u ban handguns, dad's buying the AK dude.

also feel like banning handguns takes away from the "I own a gun for self-defense" narrative - like "I own an uzi for self defense...and for the ability to kill dozens of people in seconds should I feel like it"