The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

the assault weapons ban is a great example of that because honestly most dudes that knew a bit about guns kinda realized that it was 90% empty legislation (magazine capacity could maybe get argued although uh 10 bullets is plenty to do bad stuff with) but it sounded very satisfying if most of the info was outside yer comfort zone.

xpost to uh myself i guess?

ew "received"

this is a big derail but e-cigarettes are super popular in the southwest at least... it doesn't hurt that there are a few mid-level-marketing schemes set up to sell them.

amazed that something ppl refer to as so cut & dried actually isn't, is possibly conditional on being part of a well-regulated miltia, whatever that could be, whether some archaic notion of raising an army or jefferson's idea abt how revolutions shld reoccur that i read abt on a jane's addiction sleeve

and honestly i think gun debates are way worse than most ilx stuff - like the religion and vegetarian threads can be a chore but these moments seem to strike a particularly bad and dismissive vibe most of the time.

note: i stay far away from the politics threads so i would not be surprised if they plumb the same depths

i do think its sad that gun control debates tend to get (on both sides) into pretty much a fingers in ears nah nah i cant hear you situation - theres a lot of factual stuff that can be useful but everybody ends up being so emotionally invested that it kinda sinks below the noise and grand pronouncements.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:51 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yeah i guess this is the only reason these debates still provoke me at all. it's like...i'm open to having my mind changed on any of this, but i'd prefer some empirical reason for it, not just "guns kill ppl, ban guns, q.e.d". esp since you literally cannot just do that, and maybe shouldn't, for all sorts of reasons that aren't rooted in masturbatory gun fantasies. but when ppl roll with "guns are barbaric" and pithy one liners i just sort of assume that no one is even interested in why exactly ppl are getting killed by guns in this country. because it isn't merely because they're legal, that's just a part.

Everything I read about the assault weapons ban convinces me it was the shittiest legislation of all time but did it really address the cosmetic issues when it allowed guns that looked exactly the same to still be sold?

"e-cigarettes are super popular in the southwest at least..."
see this is what worries me.

many xposts:

I asked two pro-gun lawyers who are sort of 2nd amendment hobbyists about the whole problem that there's no way a guy with even a basement full of ammo was going to be able to stand up to some theoretical police state. One of them tried to argue that, you know, primitively armed rebels all over the world have been able to hassle full-scale armies for years. The other one just shrugged and said, basically, who cares? i.e., the practical application of the amendment doesn't matter, what it says is what matters.

gbx, I don't think anyone itt has said 'ban all guns' or assumed that banning all guns will end gun crime.

gbx, I don't think anyone itt has said 'ban all guns' or assumed that banning all guns will end gun crime.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:03 AM (27 seconds ago)

i have actually, as has iatee. people don't need them, sorry

no, we have xp

"ban guns" that is

The argument about standing up to tyrannical government is pretty silly - if we ever get to the point that Bad Guys have won over the military, we're all fucked.

But on a smaller scale, a gun could be used to stand up to small scale abuses by the state (or someone else).

my mistake xxxp

I feel ya gbx and yeah I'm not gonna look on this thread a year from now and be like "my finest work" on ILX. basically my objection to guns is this: guns are not a priori necessary to the functioning of any developed country. there are plenty of examples of developed countries in the world w/o guns that get along just perfectly fine.

my second objection is that there are afaict no other forms of entertainment that can be so easily misused to inflict harm and death on other people.

and of course I hold these beliefs while fully cognizant of the role that guns have played in the history of the US, that it's built into the constitution, etc. and realistically, I think you and me are on the same page - stricter laws about gun ownership, mandatory training, harsher vetting, etc.

and I'd like a pony.

wait what is 'small scale abuses by the state'

sheriffs abusing black citizens?

right but at this point in history we have better ways to deal w/ that than guns

was trying to think of ways to involve race in this argument xp

so it's like if yr gonna go to the mat and pass some g-d legislation, is "ban guns" what you want to ride for, or are there other policy prescriptions that might do the job with less gnashing of teeth and more efficacy? and while this might seem like a cynical dodge ("why not just make guns illegal AND fix healthcare??"), it's only that if you think that the actual existence/legality of guns is, like, a moral issue. which it patently is not (it really isn't, guys), which is why dudes like milo bring up "metaphysical objections" to guns and get irate about it. cf something like abortion, which imo IS a manifestly moral issue, and one i can't compromise on. ditto healthcare, and so on.

blah blah blah guns don't kill ppl, ppl do, and so on. say what you will, but that's the truth, and i think we'll have more luck and less aggro as a nation if we get to the bottom of why ppl are killing ppl instead of pretending we can cram the genie back into the bottle---we can't. (nb - nukes on the other hand, are a genie that we should do everything we can to cram back into the bottle...but that's not because nukes are evil, it's because even a single gun is wildly dangerous to millions of people at once, while a gun...isn't).

xp hella xps

it's only that if you think that the actual existence/legality of guns is, like, a moral issue. which it patently is not (it really isn't, guys), which is why dudes like milo bring up "metaphysical objections" to guns and get irate about it.

to clarify, and to get maddeningly meta at the same time: like if a single gun sits somewhere in someone's closet, it's not an affront to nature or my sense of morals. it's if it gets used. whereas if a single person is executed by the state or barred from an abortion or w/e, that is an immediately immoral thing. imo.

right but at this point in history we have better ways to deal w/ that than guns

was trying to think of ways to involve race in this argument xp

to clarify, and to get maddeningly meta at the same time: like if a single gun sits somewhere in someone's closet, it's not an affront to nature or my sense of morals. it's if it gets used. whereas if a single person is executed by the state or barred from an abortion or w/e, that is an immediately immoral thing. imo.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, January 10, 2011 1:10 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

I think that's where I would disagree. like so far nobody has demonstrated that there is. a need. to have. a gun. that this need exists for all citizens of a country. *shrug*

is it immoral if there's kids in the house and the gun is loaded sitting in the closet?
xpost

I feel ya gbx and yeah I'm not gonna look on this thread a year from now and be like "my finest work" on ILX. basically my objection to guns is this: guns are not a priori necessary to the functioning of any developed country. there are plenty of examples of developed countries in the world w/o guns that get along just perfectly fine.

my second objection is that there are afaict no other forms of entertainment that can be so easily misused to inflict harm and death on other people.

and of course I hold these beliefs while fully cognizant of the role that guns have played in the history of the US, that it's built into the constitution, etc. and realistically, I think you and me are on the same page - stricter laws about gun ownership, mandatory training, harsher vetting, etc.

and I'd like a pony.

― dayo, Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:06 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

word, high five. and i'm pretty sure the one thing that this thread does to bring us all together is to make us all a little sheepish in one way or another.

i didn't mean that come out dickish. i see what you're saying - but not all the way with the moral/immoral divide.

xpost

I asked two pro-gun lawyers who are sort of 2nd amendment hobbyists about the whole problem that there's no way a guy with even a basement full of ammo was going to be able to stand up to some theoretical police state. One of them tried to argue that, you know, primitively armed rebels all over the world have been able to hassle full-scale armies for years. The other one just shrugged and said, basically, who cares? i.e., the practical application of the amendment doesn't matter, what it says is what matters.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:01 AM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark

it really depends on what kind of scenario you cook up - a compound filled with gun nuts isn't gonna do much, but some kind of nation-wide resistance movement? the afghanis fought off soviets with old ass rifles (and a few RPGs we gave em, but even taking hinds out of the picture they were still doing rugged shit like rolling boulders down mountains and knocking tanks into ravines) - plus we have the survival guide known as Red Dawn to go off of

lol i just saw this post for the first time in 3 years

i will say this: ilx is not the place to look for level-headed debate on gun control -- the prevailing attitude* here is that guns are bad, full stop, and debate is unlikely to change many minds

*a gross generalization, sure, but i'd say 5% of ilxors have even handled guns

― river wolf, Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:44 AM (3 years ago) Bookmark

some things never change

boom

thermo: w/e dude

dyao:

I think that's where I would disagree. like so far nobody has demonstrated that there is. a need. to have. a gun. that this need exists for all citizens of a country. *shrug*

― dayo, Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:13 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yeah i mean my point wasn't about demonstrating an actual human need, just that one of ilx's favorite responses to pragmatic political arguments (cf deej v. the world) is that you shouldn't sacrifice your ideals in the name of political expediency. if you think guns are inherently wrong then by god you should fight for that. but i'm personally of the mind that guns, as objects, are just things, and if i'm going to fight to eradicate an entire class of thing from the world for the betterment of humanity (and risk not being effective elsewhere because i'm w/o compromise) then i'm gonna aim higher than "guns." it's just....it seems sorta irrational, is all. like seriously lets work on disease and landmines first dudes

xp lololol hoos, the more things change

yeah who was that guy

river wolf... arooooooooooooooooo

xp oops sorry about that "w/e dude" thermo, didn't see your followup

yeah who was that guy

― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Monday, January 10, 2011 5:19 AM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark

lawl

pretty sure that guy can't log in because the jackboot of the ilx moderators won't let him have two accts at one IP or some nonsense

that poor guy

Good riddance IMO

dont worry....he's armed

BIG WOLF aka the RIVER

will pour the contents of 1 magazine into the road for him 2nite

idgi, is he big hoos? is that what everyone's saying

~precisely~

"but some kind of nation-wide resistance movement?"

facebook and twitter would probably be more vital to any such movement than munitions, and most of the time I wish facebook and twitter were banned. for spite.

lol

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

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:31 PM (Yesterday)

http://www.rumormillnews.com/Images/OmarLittle.JPG

Guns exist and it would be impossible to regulate them to the point that there is no risk associated with the existence of guns. this is the "that train has left the station when we invented the x" problem. As indicated by popular hashtags like #fuckGFW and approximately eleventy gazillion other lessons throughout history, governments cannot effectively pick and choose which parts of the modern world they want.

Managing risk to a more acceptable level is achievable, however, and in this case you have the possibly preventative measure of a ban on "assault" weapons and accessories like the extended 30-round magazine, which it's reasonable to argue could have saved several lives the other day. However, everything that restricts the trade of guns has to be weighed against the fact that there already exists a substantial secondary market, and it is statistically sound for me to state that more Americans have died of gun injuries sustained from illegally obtained and unlicensed firearms since the assassination attempt than in the assassination attempt.

Occasionally there is something to learn from an outlier event like this one, and a reasonable control can be put in place that helps manage risk, like HR 2640 after the VT shooting, or assigning USSS details to candidates after the RFK assassination. Unfortunately, when that isn't the case, monkey brains jump for reactionary measures that amount to prior restraint or outright bans of this or that and have no measurable effect on the problem at hand.* What we are probably going to learn from this is that it is pretty difficult to quarantine crazy people before they announce their craziness to the world, unless we want to start a nationwide crazy-early-warning version of COINTELPRO, ha ha ha oh god.

If I can be allowed to try and make lemonade out of the Roberts' Court's decisions on Amendment II, at least they limit the scope of what the government can regulate to those things that have, over time, actually proven useful in improving the safety of gun business, instead of unenforceable double-jeopardy nonsense like "if you have a gun in your house it must be taken apart or fixed with a trigger lock at all times."

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Secret_Service_report_on_school_shootings

ty!

it is statistically sound for me to state that more Americans have died of gun injuries sustained from illegally obtained and unlicensed firearms since the assassination attempt than in the assassination attempt.

btw this is u&k, even in just a conceptual way---the assassination attempt/columbine/VT are outlier events, and not representative in any way of the dangers that guns present to society in the quite literally quotidian sense.

(cf the 'meaningless' references to silencers and so on upthread)

would also really like to know exactly how constrained the gov't is in limiting the private sale of guns and so on. it seems like it would be impossible to outlaw it completely (not just from a political standpoint, but from a constitutional standpoint, maybe?), but then again cars/houses have deeds and titles and so on---does someone that buys a handgun at a trade show get 'paperwork' with it, or do they just walk out with the thing? is the 'paperwork' in this case the serial number? idk this stuff

Is there anyone on this thread who has admitted to being a gun owner and can answer that? I've been reading this thread/thinking about it silently but can ask my father if there isn't anyone else here with personal experience. I'm actually sorta curious now as to what process he had to undergo to get the several guns/rifles that were (still are) kept in our house while I was a kid.