The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

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.

milo z

Ha - obv didn't read whole thread. Then Milo should chime in here. I'd be interested in finding out more about GBX's question re the procedures and paperwork or lack thereof.

isn't gbx a gun person

Depends on the state. I've only bought guns in Texas, which is relatively lax:

As far as federal requirements go, you fill out a form 4473 that asks you for all your infomation, has a series of check boxes where you answer that you are a citizen, you aren't a felon, you aren't under a restraining order, you haven't renounced your citizenship, etc. - all pretty pointless, but I assume they exist to add punishment should someone get busted for a straw purchase or w/e.

If you live in a state where your concealed handgun license requires a thorough background check, the dealer fills out their part of the 4473 and you're on your way.
If you don't have a CHL or your state's requirements don't include a check, the dealer calls you into the NICS system to determine whether or not you can buy a gun. This takes several minutes and requires more paperwork by the FFL. I'm lucky, as I had a form of federal firearms license for a few years (I could have 'curio and relic' guns shipped directly to me), my approval never takes any time at all. The background check will either immediately approve you, deny you or put a hold on your purchase while they try to figure out if you can't buy the gun or if you're just getting confused with someone who can't. After 72 hours they have to formally deny or you can go ahead and buy the gun.

4473s are kept by the firearms licensee for a time, but there's not supposed to be any actual federal record keeping regarding who has purchased what or who's called into NICS.

In terms of personal transactions, as long as I believe I'm selling a gun to someone of legal age and not a felon, I can do so privately (so long as I'm not doing it as a dealer).

Other states are more strict - person to person transfers need to go through a FFL (I think California does this), you need a permit to get a handgun, period (NY), etc.

isn't gbx a gun person

― conrad, Monday, January 10, 2011 10:55 AM (44 minutes ago) Bookmark

nope. i grew up with them, know how to shoot them, but i don't own any and never have. never been hunting, either, which was probably not made clear upthread.

also:

In terms of personal transactions, as long as I believe I'm selling a gun to someone of legal age and not a felon, I can do so privately (so long as I'm not doing it as a dealer).

this right here seems to be the gaping loophole. legal age is verifiable enough (check a driver's license or something), but the average person cannot verify whether or not someone is a felon, or at least not easily, as far as i can tell. and while the legal ramifications of selling to a felon might dissuade some ppl from doing it, i'd wager that unless you ~knowingly~ sold to a felon, it might be difficult to actually go to jail for it. maybe not, though. also, if a gun changed hands several times, privately, before ending up in the hands of a felon who used it for a murder, it sounds like the only way to trace the weapon is to its original, legal, point of sale. and i can't imagine how law enforcement would be able to trace the natural history of a handgun that was purchased in like ID and used in a murder in FL, possibly many years later.

4473s are kept by the firearms licensee for a time, but there's not supposed to be any actual federal record keeping regarding who has purchased what or who's called into NICS.

sooo...is the 4473 associated with the individual weapon, or with the gun owner? i'm guessing the "federal record keeping regarding who has purchased what" is the biggest stumbling block here, politically and maybe legally. our well-regulated militias almost certainly believe that a federal database of who the gun owners are, and what they've got in their safes, totally sells out the idea of civilian resistance to tyranny, and could no doubt be used for nefarious govt strong-arming (hmm...looks like a bunch of black dudes are registered gun owners, let's keep an eye on them!). buuuuut....we track explosives and who buys them, right? i guess i'm sympathetic to the idea that a govt that has the ability to spot aggregations of armed resistance just by checking a database might be Big Brotherish and preemptively suppressive of the revolution we won't be having any time soon, but revolutions are illegal anyway so who fucking cares

Yet you can sell your car privately and someone will still be responsible (in CA at least) for making sure the State knows that the title has changed. At the risk of sounding like a traditional liberal, the idea of liability and mandatory insurance seems more and more attractive. Yes, you have a right to have a gun but not irresponsibly and your right is tempered by duties.

also, and again this seems big brotherish and a little grating to my 15yo self's libertarian gun-shooting sensibilities, it seems like a federal database (or at least robust state-databases that the fed was allowed to hook into or w/e) would greatly ease investigative law enforcement.

like i don't care if a bunch of skinheads live in the woods with massive stockpiles of legally obtained guns. nor do i care if black panthers assert their 2nd amendment rights and start a gun club in s chicago. this contravenes how i feel about most privacy issues, but i'm kinda willing to say that if you want yr gun to be a secret gun, then its v v likely that anything you plan on using it for will be 'antisocial' to say the least

also wouldn't 'knowing where all the legally purchased handguns are' seem to satisfy the 'well-regulated militia' thing? like yup these ppl have guns and could be minutemen if needed, here they are!

arguing against the documentation of gun ownership might be offensive to 'american values' (lol), but i can't see how it's offensive to the constitution? i mean if yr argument of last resort against tightly-regulated-but-still-legal gun ownership (including assault rifles, heck why not) is that the govt knowing about yr guns ~defeats the purpose~ then a) you don't seem to understand how armed uprisings really work and b) might actually be a person for whom a gun isn't the best idea. the only way the govt will ever be cowed by an armed citizenry is if we can start buying tanks and fighter jets at wal-mart

~bloggin~

I'm on my phone so hard to read and respond to all the long posts.

But re: the gun show loophole, your average gun owner would not be up in arms over that any more than the background check.

But just because it's a loophole doesn't mean there's any real harm from it either. A criminal seeking to obtain a gun doesn't care about the legality of registration or private transfer. It certainly hasn't stopped anything in Cali. And because of the number of guns in the US and lack of record keeping/private sales/etc. the idea of forming a master list now is kind of pointless.

I'm pretty laissez-faire about guns because they aren't a big issue to me. There are greater risks to public health and safety than the existence of guns, there are greater risks to liberty than taking them away, there are far greater causes of violent crime than the existence of guns. The right and the left both wildly overreact to guns as an issue.

totally with you on the last graf, fwiw.

and while it might be sort of pointless to have a master list of guns/owners in the US (though man i'd stay away from saying Master List in a political environment), it also wouldn't hurt? and might not be political kryptonite to anyone that tried to get it to happen? maybe? vs. like an outright ban on guns or even just handguns. i dunno, it seems like tighter handgun regs/closing the loophole might strike the best balance between political expediency/actual public good than a lot of other alternatives, and might merit pursuit.

i'd ~rather~ we went after root causes instead, but i don't think it'd be a waste of time or effort to make some changes, even if the damage has already been done (fat chance keeping tabs on the guns that are already out there, but why not track from now on). we may not know what happened to the soviets nukes, but it doesn't mean it's a waste of time to monitor the ones we DO know about. overblown analogy, probs, but w/e

going after the root causes is as difficult as criminalizing gun ownership - any euro-esque social welfare program will get as much political/institutional opposition as a serious gun control program. legalizing drugs? lol.