*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*

[PatrThom]

Plus there's the whole thing about the utter impossibility of "total disarmament."
Outlaw guns? Only the outlaws have guns.
Martial law-style home invasion and ruthless inspection to make sure NOBODY has any guns? Then only the State has guns. Plus there's stuff like this guy*.
Deal with devil/genie to remove every single extant gun and all ammo? Then only the other countries have guns.
Literal act of God to remove every single extant gun and all ammo from all creation? Smite all you want, we'll make more.
Cosmic event somehow removing all metals from our planet? First of all, we would die from nutritional deficiencies. Second, you can make a gun out of wood, Kirk-style.

Guns are not going away, folks. It ain't ever gonna happen. It can't happen. It won't happen. Stop trying to make it happen. Spend the energy and resources elsewhere... in education, in training, in counseling, even in propaganda if you want. Change your own lifestyle if you so desire. But trying to eliminate the private possession of "firearms" is going to be just as untenable and unobtainable as eliminating the private possession of porn, and to believe otherwise requires a deliberate suspension of disbelief.

--Patrick
*I haven't thought about this story for literal years, but it's amazing how it was the first hit when searching "buried guns and ammo under tree."

 

[AshburnerX]

And what is that in absolute numbers? Hundreds? More than @li3n's 10-20, I'm guessing.

You could have pretended to at least look at the paper...
Between 2007-2011: 235,700. That's "threaten or attack" with a firearm, so I can't say for certain if they fired in response one way or another. That's .9% of all nonfatal violent victimizations within that time period. Between 1993-2011, that remained stable under 2% over all. Of those altercations, 32% of offenders also had a firearm, while 63% had something else. Instances where an offender had no weapon aren't in the stat set... probably because pulling a firearm on somebody with nothing is less altercation and more warning. The paper doesn't have information on the number of homicide victims who used a weapon in response (a.k.a. people who did this and got killed for it.)

On average, criminals carry some sort of firearm about 14-15% of the time, usually a handgun but occasionally a shotgun or rifle. 40% acquired this from an illegal source, 37% from a friend or family member, 10% from a pawn/retail shop, 2% from a gun show, and the rest by other unlisted means.

I'm not going to get into property related crimes, mostly because I've been running numbers for over an hour at this point. READ THE DATA YOURSELF. *shakes fist* But I would like to point out we really have no idea how many of these crimes would have been fatal had the victim been unarmed. Even most violent crimes don't end in someone's death.

And additionally, the deterrent factor is impossible to measure on top of all else. Who can say how much more emboldened an armed criminal would be if he could be relatively certain his target was unarmed?

Going by total number of CC active permits in the US (most people with a CC don't carry every day or even once a month, but whatever) and it's .065, about 6.5% or 1 in 15... but remember that CC permits are required for less than lethal options in many states, like pepperspray over 2 oz. and such in Florida, so I personally wouldn't use that last one as a relevant stat. Having a permit doesn't mean you're carrying every day or even that what you are carrying is a firearm.

The toted statistic is that 3 million people carry every day. I've already explained why it's bunk; it's self reported and anonymous. But even going by that number... there are about 1.8 million armed security officers and policemen in the US alone, so they -have- to carry every day as part of their jobs. That leaves about 1.2 million civilians that carry every day. There are 247,813,910 adults in the US, so divide 1.2 million by that. You get about 0.005 or .5%. In other words, you could reasonable consider that maybe every 1 in 200 people on the street have a gun on them... or practically no one. Going by the full 3 million figure, it's .012 or 1.2% or about 1 in 100.

If I was a criminal, I could be relatively certain that most of the people I see don't have a firearm on them after a Google search. Yes, location matters for this (fewer people in New York and Chicago are carrying than would be in Houston or Dallas) but places with higher concealed carriers are also going to have lower overall population so it evens out until you hit the extremes. Even those that do, most aren't trained to use it properly.

 

[MindDetective]

Plus there's the whole thing about the utter impossibility of "total disarmament."
Outlaw guns? Only the outlaws have guns.
Martial law-style home invasion and ruthless inspection to make sure NOBODY has any guns? Then only the State has guns. Plus there's stuff like this guy*.
Deal with devil/genie to remove every single extant gun and all ammo? Then only the other countries have guns.
Literal act of God to remove every single extant gun and all ammo from all creation? Smite all you want, we'll make more.
Cosmic event somehow removing all metals from our planet? First of all, we would die from nutritional deficiencies. Second, you can make a gun out of wood, Kirk-style.

Guns are not going away, folks. It ain't ever gonna happen. It can't happen. It won't happen. Stop trying to make it happen. Spend the energy and resources elsewhere... in education, in training, in counseling, even in propaganda if you want. Change your own lifestyle if you so desire. But trying to eliminate the private possession of "firearms" is going to be just as untenable and unobtainable as eliminating the private possession of porn, and to believe otherwise requires a deliberate suspension of disbelief.

--Patrick
*I haven't thought about this story for literal years, but it's amazing how it was the first hit when searching "buried guns and ammo under tree."

What will reduce the number of guns is a severe reduction in people wanting guns. I don't propose a solution here, but if a massive culture disinterest in guns occurred, then guns would begin to decline.

 

[Gruebeard]

What will reduce the number of guns is a severe reduction in people wanting guns. I don't propose a solution here, but if a massive culture disinterest in guns occurred, then guns would begin to decline.

I'll propose a solution. Build every gun with an irritating AI that won't shut up.

. . . Dang, I'm to lazy to make this joke pay off. So, uh, something something Borderlands 2

 

[GasBandit]

I'll propose a solution. Build every gun with an irritating AI that won't shut up.

. . . Dang, I'm to lazy to make this joke pay off. So, uh, something something Borderlands 2

You're referring to the "Bane."

 

[Gruebeard]

You're referring to the "Bane."

That was one of them, yes, but the one with the foul mouthed female voice even moreso . . .


. . . although on second thought, she'd probably drive more Incel violence.

 

[@Li3n]

And what is that in absolute numbers? Hundreds? More than @li3n's 10-20, I'm guessing.

I like how always pretend the only alternative is GIVING UP ALL GUNS, EVER!!!, even though only a few ppl here are actually in favour of that...

Anyway, here's a little video:

Plus there's the whole thing about the utter impossibility of "total disarmament."
Outlaw guns? Only the outlaws have guns.
Martial law-style home invasion and ruthless inspection to make sure NOBODY has any guns? Then only the State has guns. Plus there's stuff like this guy*.
Deal with devil/genie to remove every single extant gun and all ammo? Then only the other countries have guns.
Literal act of God to remove every single extant gun and all ammo from all creation? Smite all you want, we'll make more.
Cosmic event somehow removing all metals from our planet? First of all, we would die from nutritional deficiencies. Second, you can make a gun out of wood, Kirk-style.

Guns are not going away, folks. It ain't ever gonna happen. It can't happen. It won't happen. Stop trying to make it happen. Spend the energy and resources elsewhere... in education, in training, in counseling, even in propaganda if you want. Change your own lifestyle if you so desire. But trying to eliminate the private possession of "firearms" is going to be just as untenable and unobtainable as eliminating the private possession of porn, and to believe otherwise requires a deliberate suspension of disbelief.

--Patrick
*I haven't thought about this story for literal years, but it's amazing how it was the first hit when searching "buried guns and ammo under tree."

Yeah, remember how Australia totally failed in stopping school shootings by taking away guns... i mean, they too have them by-weekly, right?

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback


Look, i get wanting to preserve the 2nd Amendment, but pretending taking guns away doesn't make it harder to shoot ppl is just swimming in the Nile...

 

[GasBandit]

Yet more apples and oranges comparisons. Nations with 5-10% the population, all clustered into a half-dozen population centers. Much easier to enact that sort of thing in a tiny european nation with a completely different historical culture, or an island nation with no porous borders. The problems of scale and cultural context means that "why don't we just X like them" doesn't work.

What the oversimplified "says the only nation where this happens" smugness overlooks is that, frankly, we're still the only nation like us.

 

[@Li3n]

an island nation with no porous borders.

That's funny coming from the country that supplies most of Mexico's drug cartel's weapons...

Or did you forget about Obama's Fast and Furious already?

What the oversimplified "says the only nation where this happens" smugness overlooks is that, frankly, we're still the only nation like us.

Yeah, you're a totally special snowflake, and there's no other country like you... just like your mommy said.

But, hey maybe you're right... so why even bother trying... especially since it working would mean having to admit you're not that special after all.

 

[Gruebeard]

That's funny coming from the country that supplies most of Mexico's drug cartel's weapons...

I don't get the joke. Since Gas is saying that the USA has a porous border, I don't see what you get by pointing out the USA has a porous border.

 

[Tress]

I don't get the joke. Since Gas is saying that the USA has a porous border, I don't see what you get by pointing out the USA has a porous border.

@Li3n and logic haven't been on speaking terms for years.

 

[GasBandit]

I don't get the joke. Since Gas is saying that the USA has a porous border, I don't see what you get by pointing out the USA has a porous border.

He's trying to say that the guns are flowing south, not north... conveniently ignoring the fact that drugs (and much more) ARE flowing north, and if all the guns in the US magically vanished overnight (or even diminished to the degree he thinks appropriate), that flow would reverse so quickly the coyotes would get whiplash.

 

[PatrThom]

i get wanting to preserve the 2nd Amendment, but pretending taking guns away doesn't make it harder to shoot ppl is just swimming in the Nile...

If you think the 2nd Amendment is saying, "The right of citizens to shoot fellow citizens and the children of fellow citizens shall not be infringed," then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose.

--Patrick

 

[IronBrig4]

But Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all have similar histories to the US. They all began as settler societies and had frontier experiences. They all fought in conflicts against indigenous people and participated in the world wars. But all three of those countries don't have that paranoid subset that are distressingly common in rural America. I live in rural Texas and these people are on a different planet.

 

[GasBandit]

But Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all have similar histories to the US. They all began as settler societies and had frontier experiences. They all fought in conflicts against indigenous people and participated in the world wars. But all three of those countries don't have that paranoid subset that are distressingly common in rural America. I live in rural Texas and these people are on a different planet.

They didn't win their independence by rebelling against tyrannical acts. They asked nicely and got it, eventually.

 

[IronBrig4]

They didn't win their independence by rebelling against tyrannical acts. They asked nicely and got it, eventually.

Well, none of them came close to matching the British population prior to independence either. Had the 13 colonies' population remained at just a few hundred thousand, they never would have dared try for independence.

 

[GasBandit]

Well, none of them came close to matching the British population prior to independence either. Had the 13 colonies' population remained at just a few hundred thousand, they never would have dared try for independence.

Also, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think there was an equivalent of the French and Indian war in the Australian scenario that then caused economic strife that led to the turmoil that led to the revolution. But now we're just getting into elseworlds speculation. Fun as that might be

Heck, down that way lies Nightmare Frame mechas!

Spoiler: explanation for those who don't get the reference

Code Geass takes place in an alternate timeline where the colonies lost the revolution, but then napoleon subsequently was NOT defeated, and ran the British right across the Atlantic, where they re-established the Britannian Empire in north america. 250 years later, they become an unabashed world oppressor with the strongest military and the most advanced technology, used to impose an openly racist class/caste system on the territories they conquer. One rogue Britannian prince rises up in opposition, and leads Japan in a revolution against the Britannian Empire... It's probably my favoritest anime

 

[Hailey Knight]

 

[Dei]

On the 20th anniversary, a good video about Columbine.

 

[@Li3n]

He's trying to say that the guns are flowing south, not north... conveniently ignoring the fact that drugs (and much more) ARE flowing north, and if all the guns in the US magically vanished overnight (or even diminished to the degree he thinks appropriate), that flow would reverse so quickly the coyotes would get whiplash.

Yeah, we all know the real reason Mexico isn't producing it's own weapons is because labour costs are just so much cheaper in the US they just can't compete.

@Li3n and logic haven't been on speaking terms for years.

They said, while they kept on pretending that anything that reduces instant gun availability is an attempt at destroying the 2nd...

If you think the 2nd Amendment is saying, "The right of citizens to shoot fellow citizens and the children of fellow citizens shall not be infringed," then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose.

Yeah, it's totally not saying that... but if you actually try to even attempt to find a solution to citizens shooting fellow citizens, the 1st thing you hear is that you want to abolish the Second Amendment.

I don't get the joke. Since Gas is saying that the USA has a porous border, I don't see what you get by pointing out the USA has a porous border.

He's implying you'd get your weapons from Mexico (i always assume americans talking about the problems with the border are never thinking about the border with Canada, because i'm guaranteed to be right 99% of the time then), otherwise why would a porous border matter when it comes to the supply of guns?

Which is ridiculous since there's a reason why Mexico's cartels get their guns from the US... see above, in my response to Gas.

 

[Null]

One thing that seems like it shouldn't be too much to ask, is to require people who sell more than a half dozen guns or so per year to get a Federal Firearms License as a dealer. The initial cost is $30 to $200, depending on the kind of license you get, which is good for three years, after which, it can be renewed for $90 for 3 more years. Having an FFL also allows you to purchase ammunition and supplies at a wholesale rate, so an avid shooter might find an FFL paying for itself.

Why do I think this will help?

Because FFL dealers are required by law to keep a record of sale and do a background check for all purchases. In 29 states, a private seller doesn't have to do a background check or even require ID.

Currently, anyone whose primary means on income is not selling guns can be considered a private seller, regardless of how many guns they sell. So for example, if you have someone who works as a claims adjuster making around 65k a year, who supplements that income by doing gun shows every couple months, they could literally buy and sell dozens of firearms, so long as their net income from it was less than their main income. And they would not be required to do background checks in more than half the country.

Does this seem like an unreasonable infringement on people's rights? Asking that people who sell more than a few guns a year become dealers and do background checks?

Yes, I know that the state and federal databases do not always contain the same information, so there are flaws in how certain background checks are done. I also know that this is because several states do not want to participate as bases of contact for the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and so do not share information.

But do you think that the principle is overly oppressive? And if so, how?

 

[GasBandit]

But do you think that the principle is overly oppressive? And if so, how?

Well, my first question is, how do you audit this requirement without de facto tracking every single private gun purchase?

 

[Null]

Well, if you are serious about wanting people who are not eligible to own a gun (convicted felon, history of being institutionalized, etc) to not have access to purchasing a gun, you kind of have to do that.

 

[GasBandit]

Well, if you are serious about wanting people who are not eligible to own a gun (convicted felon, history of being institutionalized, etc) to not have access to purchasing a gun, you kind of have to do that.

... which makes it national gun registration by another name, which is a non-starter.

 

[Null]

I disagree. You can have an armed populace and have national gun registration. Hell, that's how Switzerland does it, and they keep being pointed out as a nation with a high rate of gun ownership and low violent crime rate.

If you want to legally own a car, it has to be registered. It has to be insured in most places. It has to be inspected regularly to make sure it's up to standards for emissions and safety. Why is that all totally reasonable for a means of personal transport, but absolute tyranny when applied to a weapon?

 

[@Li3n]

Null, you're making the mistake of thinking they want a solution, and not just arguing against anything because they think any compromise is weakness, and will only lead to them losing.

Truth is, if you want anything done about gun safety, 1st thing to do is to try to change the culture that lionises guns as some sort of symbol of freedom, as opposed to a necessary tool of freedom that the 2nd A makes the case for.

 

[GasBandit]

I disagree. You can have an armed populace and have national gun registration. Hell, that's how Switzerland does it, and they keep being pointed out as a nation with a high rate of gun ownership and low violent crime rate.

National gun registration is also the first step taken by those who would be some of history's worst tyrants and criminals, looking to disarm those who would be their victims. Imagine Trump has a record of everyone who owns a gun in America... and then starts rounding up guns owned by Democrats. Or people with brown skin. Sounds kind of like a first step to something much more worrisome, doesn't it?

If you want to legally own a car, it has to be registered. It has to be insured in most places. It has to be inspected regularly to make sure it's up to standards for emissions and safety. Why is that all totally reasonable for a means of personal transport, but absolute tyranny when applied to a weapon?

Because, first of all, it isn't true - you can own a car without registering it or insuring it or getting it inspected - you only have to jump through those hoops if you want to drive it on public roads. My grandfather has a farm truck that hasn't had a new inspection or plate sticker since 1983.

And second of all, because personal transport ownership and operation is not a constitutional right upon which the government has been explicitly instructed "shall not be infringed." Other than the bits about unreasonable search and seizure, I suppose.

 

[mikerc]

And second of all, because personal transport ownership and operation is not a constitutional right upon which the government has been explicitly instructed "shall not be infringed." Other than the bits about unreasonable search and seizure, I suppose.

Because cars weren't a thing when your constitution was written. And I'd wager that there are a lot more Americans for whom the ability to use a car is a necessity than there are who need guns.

 

[Cog]

Imagine Trump has a record of everyone who owns a gun in America... and then starts rounding up guns owned by Democrats. Or people with brown skin.

But they would have guns. Would you let the government take your guns?

 

[blotsfan]

Imagine Trump has a record of everyone who owns a gun in America... and then starts rounding up guns owned by Democrats

I've been told an armed populace would be able to stop the government.

 

[Null]

Creating a national gun registry wouldn't infringe upon your right to enlist in a uniformed, well-regulated militia.

 

[@Li3n]

National gun registration is also the first step taken by those who would be some of history's worst tyrants and criminals, looking to disarm those who would be their victims. Imagine Trump has a record of everyone who owns a gun in America... and then starts rounding up guns owned by Democrats.

That reminds me, how is having a list of political association not worse then one of gun ownership?

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Gun_regulation_of_the_Third_Reich

 

[GasBandit]

Because cars weren't a thing when your constitution was written.

Yeah, and the internet and TV and radio weren't either, but the first amendment still applies to them even though it's called "freedom of the (printing) press." It's not the government's place to decide what you "need." Especially given that the founders explicitly wrote into the amendment that the country needs an armed populace.

Creating a national gun registry wouldn't infringe upon your right to enlist in a uniformed, well-regulated militia.

And that's not a thing. The "militia" is not a uniformed government institution, it's every able bodied citizen of age. And well-regulated doesn't mean "kept on a tight government leash," it means equipped to the standards of a Regular - a footsoldier. We've been over that countless times.

But they would have guns. Would you let the government take your guns?

Personally? No. But there's a lot of well meaning doofuses who fall for things like gun buybacks. They know they can't openly come for our guns, so they chip, chip, chip away at the second amendment, little by little, like trying to slowly boil a frog. It's the way they've always done it.

I've been told an armed populace would be able to stop the government.

Which is why we shouldn't let them take the first step to disarming that populace - and that first step is universal registration.

 

[blotsfan]

Which is why we shouldn't let them take the first step to disarming that populace - and that first step is universal registration.

Why would it matter? When they move to actually disarming, the people will shoot a few soldiers and the tyrannical government will be stopped.

 

[mikerc]

It's not the government's place to decide what you "need." Especially given that the founders explicitly wrote into the amendment that the country needs an armed populace.

You realise that I wasn't claiming that the US government should say people need cars right? I was saying that as a matter of practicality more Americans "need" cars than guns, and that to use them the way they need to, those cars have to be licensed.

Plus if you say the government doesn't get to say you need certain things...well, the founders were your first government. They enacted your constitution into law under that authority. By your own logic then, they shouldn't get to say you "need" guns & your oh-so-holy second amendment shouldn't stand.