Obama calling for more gun control

[strawman]

So apparently Obama is taking this opportunity to use public outrage and sentiment to encourage people to support more oppressive gun legislation.

Here is an excellent post that goes over nearly every argument gun control nuts use, and has taught me a number of things I didn't know before.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

He covers arming teachers, gun free zones, assault weapons, large capacity clips, and even the tired "why don't we allow citizen nukes" regarding the 2nd amendment. He steps through the most popular gun control suggestions.

It's long, but if Obama think it's important we have a discussion on it then let's have a discussion.

 

[Bubble181]

Fair enough. Too bad about 85% of his article can be summarized as: "putting any legal limits on guns or gun-related items or behaviour is useless, since criminals will just break the law anyway".

True, but besides the point, and been responded to a hundred times over. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about uns (hah!) or people (hah!) or, well, aything at all, really. I do know that simply saying "thatl aw won't work because criminals will just do it anyway" is an argument to legalise theft, rape, murder and slavery - because criminals will just do it anyway.

Mind you, he has some good arguments (and I'm not entirely against guns - we've been over this). There's no simple quick "solution" to mass killings. Especially in a country where guns are as prevalent as they are in the US. Doesn't mean people can't deplore the situation.

There's only two good ways to deal with guns;
A) make sure nobody has guns legally except for a select few (and yes, it's proven to work, no matter how much "gun lovers" (hey, if he can say "gun control nuts" I can use funny-but-inaccurate monickers too!) like to claim it doesn't)
B) make sure everyone has a gun, is allowed to carry concealed, and is instructed in its use, and hope for the best (and that sort-of works too, as is shown all over the world with that other implement of mass death - the car).

 

[strawman]

Looks like you didn't read the article. He never used the term "gun control nuts" - I did. Further, he addresses your valid points quite well.

The invalid point (legalizing guns is like legalizing rape - buh, what?) doesn't make sense to me, so I'm ignoring it, but perhaps you can expand on it in a way that makes more sense and I can better understand what you're saying. In short, we're talking about a tool not a crime. Making a tool illegal is not the same as making a crime illegal. So perhaps you can modify your argument to better explain why making guns illegal is the same as making rape illegal.

 

[SpecialKO]

Yeah, I can't really take that article seriously. He cites almost nothing except for name-dropping two academics (Lott and Kleck) whose work has been highly criticized for methodology, poor sampling and dubious conclusions, and two-thirds of his article is him making up emotional arguments by "the other side" to argue against. I, for one, don't equate gun control with outright banning guns.

He's basically concern trolling the Brady bunch.

Much of the recent crime stat info he links to was collected by David Hemenway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hemenway), who specifically disagrees with most of what the author of that article claims. (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html).

Also, though overall a much smaller claim, it's a bit silly to bring up the stabbings in China as proof that restricting gun ownership doesn't work, seeing as how no one was fatally injured when the guy used a knife instead of a gun.

 

[Espy]

I say we arm the schoolchildren. All of them. BAM. Problem solved. Your move liberal idiots.

 

[Necronic]

My problem with the "Criminals will get guns anyways" is that it's provably false in Europe. Sure, a very limited number of them do, but VERY FEW criminals can get their hands on guns. Interestingly, it's also legal for a civilian to get a gun there as well (UK at least), it's just a lot more regulated.

I didn't read the entire 30 pages of this article, because lets be honest, it's not a genuine attempt at an argument. His argument for High Cap Magazines is literally "But I can't reliably kill someone with a 10 round clip". Uhm. Yeah. Exactly. Most of his arguments about the inneffectiveness of the Brady Bill (which I agree was inneffective) ignore talking about the "grandfather" provision, and what would happen if we didn't grandfather.


But you know what really bothers me? I would love to see someone on the Pro-Gun side (which I myself am on) have the balls to say this:
"School shootings are statistically insignificant and legislation that affects the entire nation should not be designed around 30-60 deaths a year. There are thousands of people who die from guns each year, or who use guns to defend themselves, or who safely use guns for sport or hutning. That is the conversation. While this incident had large significance to the families involved, it, like the Oklahoma City bombing are not systemic trends that we can design legislation around to manage"

 

[SpecialKO]

Which actually brings to mind something else. It wasn't too long ago that the prevailing right wing narrative was that school teachers were government union thugs that weren't fit to teach children and examples of communist-style socialism taking over the country.

And now that same narrative thinks we should be arming them...

 

[strawman]

My problem with the "Criminals will get guns anyways" is that it's provably false in Europe. Sure, a very limited number of them do, but VERY FEW criminals can get their hands on guns. Interestingly, it's also legal for a civilian to get a gun there as well (UK at least), it's just a lot more regulated.

The astoundingly large borders, both sea and land facing, of the US and the fact that we haven't been able to ban drugs would seem to be better indicators of whether a handgun ban would work than how things work in, for instance, the island of the UK.

Also, please avoid using EU generically regarding handgun laws since it's hardly uniform. It's very confusing.

 

[Dave]

I can't grow guns in my basement.

 

[Necronic]

True enough. How about Germany then, since it has lots of borders, some with some pretty sketchy countries, and had a lot of potential for guns to hang around after the fall of the Berlin Wall. They also have a strict licensing system that does not ban the ownership of guns, just makes it more regulated.

They have ~0.2 deaths by gun per 100k, and a homicide rate by all means of ~1. Then you have the US, which has roughly 5.5 per 100k of homicides by gun, and roughly 6.5 per 100k by all means. % wise the gun deaths in Germany are lower/the deaths by other means are higher, but the overall murder rate is still much much lower.

 

[strawman]

I can't grow guns in my basement.

I can. And it's no more expensive than a good hydroponic system. And even then, you would still have a hard time growing more than pot - the harder drugs require much more effort (cost, expertise) than pot.

Same with guns. You can, with instructions on the internet, build a rudimentary single shot firearm in your garage right now without special tools, buying common materials from the hardware store. You can invest in a few machining tools and for under $1,000 start building simple semi-automatic weapons.

It's not rocket science.

 

[Necronic]

I guess my view overall is that I like guns, and I would like to own a gun (even a particularly funky won like that FN pistol everyone hates on), but I'm totally ok with some really strict regulation of them (as well as ammunition), and I don't think any kind of regulation works with a grandfather system.

 

[Dave]

I can. And it's no more expensive than a good hydroponic system. And even then, you would still have a hard time growing more than pot - the harder drugs require much more effort (cost, expertise) than pot.

Same with guns. You can, with instructions on the internet, build a rudimentary single shot firearm in your garage right now without special tools, buying common materials from the hardware store. You can invest in a few machining tools and for under $1,000 start building simple semi-automatic weapons.

It's not rocket science.

A single shot gun will not cause a mass shooting.

 

[strawman]

True enough. How about Germany then, since it has lots of borders, some with some pretty sketchy countries, and had a lot of potential for guns to hang around after the fall of the Berlin Wall. They also have a strict licensing system that does not ban the ownership of guns, just makes it more regulated.

They have ~0.2 deaths by gun per 100k, and a homicide rate by all means of ~1. Then you have the US, which has roughly 5.5 per 100k of homicides by gun, and roughly 6.5 per 100k by all means. % wise the gun deaths in Germany are lower/the deaths by other means are higher, but the overall murder rate is still much much lower.

Somalia has gun licensing too. I don't know that you can control for enough factors to make a straight up comparison.

For instance, the US has 4 times the length of land border than germany has, and that's before we even get to sea borders.[DOUBLEPOST=1356103428][/DOUBLEPOST]

A single shot gun will not cause a mass shooting.

That's true. In countries where handguns are more difficult to get people more frequently use explosives.

 

[Dave]

Somalia has gun licensing too. I don't know that you can control for enough factors to make a straight up comparison.

For instance, the US has 4 times the length of land border than germany has, and that's before we even get to sea borders.[DOUBLEPOST=1356103428][/DOUBLEPOST]

That's true. In countries where handguns are more difficult to get people more frequently use explosives.

Explosives, which have protections against it because buying the stuff for it is basically watched. Plus, it takes a higher level of knowledge to make viable bombs. So...

 

[Necronic]

Somalia has gun licensing too. I don't know that you can control for enough factors to make a straight up comparison.

For instance, the US has 4 times the length of land border than germany has, and that's before we even get to sea borders.

Oh come on, the Somalia example is completely disengenious. I would like to think that the US is stlightly better at actually enforcing it's laws than Somalia. I mean really, when the US can be directly compared to Somalia in it's laws and enforcement I think we have bigger problems than gun control.

As for the border size, think of it in terms relative to population size and police force size. I don't think it's that different of a situation. I mean, Baltimore has a tiny border compared to Germany. That doesn't mean its safer.

 

[strawman]

Oh come on, the Somalia example is completely disengenious. I would like to think that the US is stlightly better at actually enforcing it's laws than Somalia. I mean really, when the US can be directly compared to Somalia in it's laws and enforcement I think we have bigger problems than gun control.

It's a convenient placeholder for the concept that you can't compare two nations in a vacuum.

I could probably find relevant differences between the US and any other nation you might point to where gun control is "working" that might account for the difference, but the biggest in any case is cultural. The US was founded and grown differently from nearly any other nation. The entertainment alone is enough to point to the fact that we're so different that we could account for almost anything, violence especially.

At any rate, I don't think arguments saying, "The US should do X because it works in nation A" are any more valid than the reverse.

As for the border size, think of it in terms relative to population size and police force size. I don't think it's that different of a situation. I mean, Baltimore has a tiny border compared to Germany. That doesn't mean its safer.

You are suggesting that it's as easy to smuggle a gun or a crate of guns into Germany as it is to do so in the US.

I don't agree, but I don't think I'm going to try to prove that the german borders are better guarded than the US borders - it's a lot of trouble, and it means I'd have to step up to the plate for every nation you might point out has better gun control with the same border issues as the US.

 

[SpecialKO]

Switzerland is actually a very interesting case.

By American standards, the gun control laws are quite restrictive, but everyone still has them.

 

[Dave]

Switzerland is actually a very interesting case.

By American standards, the gun control laws are quite restrictive, but everyone still has them.

They also have mandatory armed forces service.

 

[strawman]

Switzerland is actually a very interesting case.

By American standards, the gun control laws are quite restrictive, but everyone still has them.

I suspect that if the US had mandatory military service the dynamic would be different here too. The indoctrination of boot camp changes a person much more than public school does.

 

[Bubble181]

The invalid point (legalizing guns is like legalizing rape - buh, what?) doesn't make sense to me, so I'm ignoring it, but perhaps you can expand on it in a way that makes more sense and I can better understand what you're saying. In short, we're talking about a tool not a crime. Making a tool illegal is not the same as making a crime illegal. So perhaps you can modify your argument to better explain why making guns illegal is the same as making rape illegal.

My argument is not that legalizing guns is like legalizing rape. My point is that HIS argument is - against most gun laws, and if you really want I'll go quote happy and quote half his article here - is "making this sort of law is pointless, because criminals will ignore the law anyway". THAT is a ridiculous reasoning, that I simply slippery-sloped to its logical conclusion. Making anything illegal is useless, because criminals will ignore that law anyway. He simply and blatantly ignores that far and away most gun deaths aren't from criminals, but from heat of passion, accidents or people who shouldn't have access to guns (mentally disabled, children, convicted felons,...) getting access to guns because their care and keep isn't as strictly controlled as it could be (keeping guns and clips in the same closet, keeping guns loaded, improper maintenance leading to faults, putting guns in holster with the safety off, and so on and so forth). A lot of those deaths could be prevented by proper gun control.

 

[SpecialKO]

They also have mandatory armed forces service.

Not so much armed forces service as militia training for 30% of the country (And the 100 guys who get to serve in their Air Force and fly F-18s at high speeds over Lake Geneva). The rest of the country doesn't get training or issued weaponry, but many of them still have guns.

They also have universal healthcare, heavily-financed public schools, a deep social net, and extremely high standard of living.

Funny how that sort of thing has an effect.

 

[Shakey]

I found this part of his post incredibly sad.

Gun and magazine sales skyrocket every time a democrat politician starts to vulture in on a tragedy. I don’t know if many of you realize this, but Barack Obama is personally responsible for more gun sales, and especially first time gun purchases, than anyone in history. When I owned my gun store, we had a picture of him on the wall and a caption beneath it which said SALESMAN OF THE YEAR.

This is why non gun owners get freaked out and think people who have guns are crazy gun nuts. What legislation has Obama tried to get passed that would ban or limit guns? He wasn't even running on a platform of gun reform and the idea of him getting re-elected caused gun sales to surge. It's not Obama that's responsible for those sales. It's the ignorance and fear on the part of these people who think Obama's going to take away their guns.

I guess I'd like to wait and see what Obama actually does before I freak out about it. I doubt he'll ban anything, and if he tries to they'll be a lot of opposition. I would like to see the gun show loophole closed along with more of a background check when buying guns, but that's about it. I don't think that's too horribly unreasonable.

 

[strawman]

most gun deaths aren't from criminals, but from heat of passion, accidents or people who shouldn't have access to guns (mentally disabled, children, convicted felons,...) getting access to guns because their care and keep isn't as strictly controlled as it could be (keeping guns and clips in the same closet, keeping guns loaded, improper maintenance leading to faults, putting guns in holster with the safety off, and so on and so forth). A lot of those deaths could be prevented by proper gun control.

I'd say citation required, but let's assume you are correct and that if we took all the guns away from all the criminals then firearm homicide wouldn't budge.

Heat of passion is handled by the brady bill as much as it can be. There's a waiting period, and only if you are suddenly passionate about killing someone during a gun show will you be easily able to get a gun same day without interacting with criminals. Sure, you can probably find a valid independent seller reasonably quickly, but if you are going to that much effort it's hardly a crime of passion any longer.

We do restrict guns to people who shouldn't have them. That system is faulty due to process, not due to legislation. I don't see how additional legislation is going to make it better.

I don't think a lot of deaths are due to people storing guns and ammo in the same closet, or improper gun care and storage. This is one where I'd like to see citation before we start discussing laws that would make it a felony to not keep a gun in a gun safe, separate from ammunition in another separate safe on the other side of the house, and arrest people for having a gun with safety off in their holster.

 

[Dubyamn]

Boo this guy really hates his strawmen. Wonder why he bothered to set them up in the first place.

 

[Dave]

He's coming at it as a GUN SHOP OWNER! His arguments are slanted towards that end. He wants a dialogue, but only if they agree with him.

 

[strawman]

He's coming at it as a GUN SHOP OWNER! His arguments are slanted towards that end. He wants a dialogue, but only if they agree with him.

If that's the case, then his arguments should be easy to knock down.

 

[Wahad]

I can't grow guns in my basement.

But you can make them in your kitchen!

(not my image)

 

[GasBandit]

Last year more than 400 school-age children were killed by gun crime in chicago - the city with the heaviest gun control laws in the US (outright banned, 2nd amendment be damned, supreme court be damned). Where was the outcry? Where were the calls for even more gun control (if that were possible)? The truth of the matter is gun control advocates wait around for a headline-grabbing tragedy to use as the spearpoint on their next thrust against the 2nd amendment, counting on emotions to carry through where facts and logic do not.

 

[drawn_inward]

I have been fairly pro-gun my whole life, but this recent incident has really shaken my stance. My immediate family is staunchly pro-military, pro-gun, knee-jerk conservatives. I can tell you first hand that it seems to me that they are listening/watching some idiot talking head that is scaring them. Out of this ridiculous fear, they have bought weapons. I imagine it's the same across the nation. Since Obama has been elected, I have seen my family transform from what I thought were patriotic conservatives to paranoid, closed-minded zealots.

I don't know what the answer is. It seems like an impossible task. I would honestly like to see less guns available, and make it extraordinarily difficult to buy a gun, as well as a limit.

I also think that people are the problem. The U.S. is full of people who beat their chests when it comes to 'rights'. As well, it's full of inconsiderate entitled jerks. I don't mean to knock down all of the U.S., but every time I go to the grocery store, mall, theater, or just about any public place I see mean people.

 

[Dave]

If that's the case, then his arguments should be easy to knock down.

Haven't bothered. You'll notice I have indicated what side I'm on but haven't gone on a rant. That's because this is one of those topics that I think needs a dialogue, but nobody is willing to go past their line in the sand. Should teachers be armed? Hell no. Should everyone be able to carry? Hell no. Does making guns illegal keep them out of the hands of criminals? Yes. Maybe not at first, but over time it certainly would. The drug & alcohol analogies are terrible, but that's the main argument against. You can't easily make a gun at home in your basement. not everyone has that kind of knowledge.

So, you argue, banning guns will affect legal gun ownership. Yup. And most of these rampages are from using weapons purchased legally. So take away that avenue and their rampage goes away.

So, you argue, banning guns means they'll use bombs. I've already delved into that.

So they'll use other weapons! Should we ban them? Yes, if those weapons have no other purpose. Guns serve no other purpose than killing. None. You want to hunt? Cool. Rifles with limited clips or shotguns. It's really hard to do rampages with these weapons. Knives, cars, sporks...whatever spurious reasoning you want to try and attribute to their banning if used in a murder is just that - spurious.

But what about the second amendment?!? The CONSTITUTION!! Well, are you a part of a well regulated militia? No? Didn't think so. It doesn't fucking apply to you!

Gun owners use all sorts of mental gymnastics to get around the fact that their toys are nothing more than killing machines designed for one purpose only, and that's the ending of lives.

Are they fun to shoot? Hell yeah! I love shooting guns! I qualified expert in the Marine Corps - which is the highest level you could get. Out of 350 possible points I was consistently in the high 330's / low 340's. I have hunted (haven't done it in about 20 years, but I have indulged). I have fired .50 cal mounted on a tripod at night with tracer rounds. I have fired uzis at the rifle range where I was stationed. I have fired soap bullets at cats....don't ask. I fucking love to shoot weapons! They are a blast. But I don't own any. I got rid of them when I had kids. Why? Because they are dangerous to kids, even ones who have been trained. Kids just don't have the ability to think through their actions.

Gun free zones? I agree they don't work. Because when you have an armed populace that glorifies weapons, these places will get targeted. But if EVERY PLACE was a gun free zone because the guns didn't exist? Moot point.

But none of these points will change your mind. Or the mind of the guy who wrote the article. His mind is made up and there's no give & take. No concessions. Everyone needs to have guns because more guns = more safety from the evil boogy man. Kinda like the argument that the more places have nukes the safer we'll be as a world. Just doesn't cut the mustard of a logical mind.

 

[GasBandit]

But what about the second amendment?!? The CONSTITUTION!! Well, are you a part of a well regulated militia? No? Didn't think so. It doesn't fucking apply to you!

BZZT. That's one that's been shot down before as well. "Well regulated" does not mean "explicitly controlled by government." Using the 18th century term "well regulated" means "up to standard." Well working. Made regular. "A militia" is not an organized body that falls under government control. A lot of people mistakenly think of a militia as something akin to the national guard. It's not. It simply means a group of armed civilians acting in their own defense. And being that a well regulated (meaning equipped to the standards of actual soldiers) militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Of course guns are "nothing but killing machines designed to end lives." But you can't uninvent them. They're not going away. And the surest way to oppression and injustice is to make sure that one group has them and another does not. Then, even in a democracy, it just becomes 3 wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Too many people blaming the tools, not blaming the killers. As a happy bonus to the second amendment, guns stop 2.5 million crimes per year. [source 2]

But for the record, I don't think forcing teachers to be armed would help, either.

 

[MindDetective]

BZZT. That's one that's been shot down before as well. "Well regulated" does not mean "explicitly controlled by government." Using the 18th century term "well regulated" means "up to standard." Well working. Made regular. "A militia" is not an organized body that falls under government control. A lot of people mistakenly think of a militia as something akin to the national guard. It's not. It simply means a group of armed civilians acting in their own defense. And being that a well regulated (meaning equipped to the standards of actual soldiers) militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Of course guns are "nothing but killing machines designed to end lives." But you can't uninvent them. They're not going away. And the surest way to oppression and injustice is to make sure that one group has them and another does not. Then, even in a democracy, it just becomes 3 wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Too many people blaming the tools, not blaming the killers. As a happy bonus to the second amendment, guns stop 2.5 million crimes per year. [source 2]

But for the record, I don't think forcing teachers to be armed would help, either.

That still doesn't seem to apply to an individual keeping guns in his living room. It doesn't quite conform to the idea of a militia to me, civilian controlled or otherwise.

 

[Dave]

Gas quoting a terrible resource like Kleck? Color me surprised. Next he's going to quote Jenny McCarthy as proof vaccinations are bad. Kleck has been discredited by other scholars such as David Hemenway, Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig.

Just so you know, Kleck in that paper says that armed women prevented 40% of all sexual assaults. I'm not kidding.

 

[GasBandit]

Gas quoting a terrible resource like Kleck? Color me surprised. Next he's going to quote Jenny McCarthy as proof vaccinations are bad. Kleck has been discredited by other scholars such as David Hemenway, Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig.

Just so you know, Kleck in that paper says that armed women prevented 40% of all sexual assaults. I'm not kidding.

Yes, a PHD criminologist, at the University of Florida, who was presented the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology, and whose research was good enough for the Supreme Court to cite as recently as 2008 when they found that the 2nd amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear. What a horrible, horrible source for information gun-crime-related.

Incidentally, that 2008 decision, which ended the gun ban in Washington DC? Yeah, murder and violent crime rates plummeted since, not raised.

That still doesn't seem to apply to an individual keeping guns in his living room. It doesn't quite conform to the idea of a militia to me, civilian controlled or otherwise.

What does "keep and bear" mean to you? Have in a collective armory? It means to own and carry. A militia is armed by what they themselves own, they are not provided arms by the armed forces. It's pretty plain common sense - because the people have to be able to credibly defend a free state themselves if necessary, their right to own and carry firearms must be guaranteed. If someone doesn't posess the guns themselves, they can't be expected unfettered access to them.