Other Let’s Have a Meaningful Discussion on Gun Control

[Peacemaker .45]

I don't mean assault rifles, I mean assault weapons. Assault weapon - Wikipedia If you mean rifles, you might want to change what you said in the first post.

This terminology is grounded in the assault rifle bans that have popped up over the years. I dismiss this terminology as it has no actual factual basis. The terminology has been used to describe weapons similar to actual assault rifles, but based in cosmetic features of the rifle. I find it to be a propaganda sort of term by gun control advocates these days that, again, really doesn’t have a factual basis. A semi-automatic rifles with certain cosmetic features is no more deadly than one without those features. I do feel also that when the term assault rifle is proven to be incorrect for guns like the AR-15, gun control advocates just decided to call it an “assault weapon” so they can still say it’s an assault something to carry that sort of weight and fear that the word implies.

In my opinion, the term has no factual basis and is just a propaganda term. Plus, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE or ATF), the governing government body that deals with firearm laws and regulations enforcement, doesn’t seem to have any definition of “assault weapon,” though they do seem to have “assault rifles” displayed on their website.

This is just my opinion though.

 

[Lincs]

Just tossing my hat into the ring to say that there's no such thing as an "assault weapon." It's a made up term used to sensationalize and misinform and doesn't actually refer to any specific kind of weapon.

Assault rifles are an actual thing, like Peacemaker .45 said in the OP. It's already incredibly hard to impossible to own one as a civilian, depending where you're from.

I'm really big on guns. But I also support responsible gun management laws rather than gun control. A good federal gun buyback program would be a good start - people would have incentive to sell their unused gear to the government, taking weapons out of circulation that could fall into the wrong hands. And also work on better enforcing laws against bump stocks, trigger cranks, and other non-cosmetic gun mods so we don't have another Vegas.

Also, Australia's gun policy is strict, but it's still plenty possible to own guns there. They tightened up their laws after an awful mass shooting in Tasmania in the 90s, and haven't had a single one since. Might be worth looking into.

 

[JayTee]

I love guns, like, a lot. I don't own any because they're expensive as balls and I live in the city, but goddamn do I love the kick of a shotgun when skeet shooting with my uncle.

That said I'm not sure what discussion is worth having. We know what works (greater gun control = less mass murders) and we know what doesn't (out current situation).

The big sticking point seems to be that some people see the 2nd amendment as sacrosanct and untouchable, and even then only a specific part of the 2nd amendment (the 'right to bear arms' part, not the 'well regulated' part).

I like shooting guns, I like that I can, in theory, go out and buy me the biggest goddamn rifle I can turn a car in to swiss cheese at the scrapyard whenever I visit family out in the country.

That said, if the government passed a law that basically made it impossible for me to buy automatics, semi-automatics and left me with the option of a revolver or a leaver action or pump action weapon, I would have no problem with that either. I'd rather people be safe than keep my favorite toys.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

I believe banning guns based on their action-types won’t do much to stop gun crime. If a person isn’t granted access to a semi-automatic rifle, then they’ll settle for the bolt-action. The amount of damage a gun can inflict really only matters in regards to the military, where ballistic protection is taken into account. Civilians will not have access to such things, meaning that a bullet, regardless of it’s size, velocity, or the gun that fired it will still end up being lethal. But banning guns altogether won’t have much effect. People who commit gun violence are not law-abiding citizens. If they can’t get access to a gun legally, then they’ll just do it illegally. At least with legal gun trade, the transaction is recorded and those selling the gun legally can reject the offer if they suspect something is off with the buyer. A person selling guns illegally will not care who gets what. Like others have said, the more effective solution would be to restrict one’s ability to access guns more severely, such as preventing people with illnesses that has an effect on their emotions from obtaining and retaining a firearm licence.

I also looked over the issue with bump stocks. The problem with the ban is that they are not prohibiting a complex device. A bump stock is simply a stock that uses the recoil of a firearm to maintain a continued stream of fire. They do not modify the inner workings of a firearm in anyway.

 

[JayTee]

Banning action types was more an example on my part than a realistic expectation. That said while I agree that it wont reduce gun crime, it will make it a lot harder for people to inflict damage on a larger sale. The advantage of an automatic over an semiautomatic, or a pump/leaver action is the amount of rounds it can fire within a set amount of time, which translates to how many different targets a person can hit within a set amount of time. The more bullets down range, the more opportunities you have to hit someone.

I'll definitely agree that making it a lot harder to obtain firearms and tracking each transaction more closely would help, especially if you flag at-risk people in the same way we flag them for airplanes.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

I also looked over the issue with bump stocks. The problem with the ban is that they are not prohibiting a complex device. A bump stock is simply a stock that uses the recoil of a firearm to maintain a continued stream of fire. They do not modify the inner workings of a firearm in anyway.

Which is why I don’t support the ban on them. At its core, the rifle still is semi-automatic. No internal work has been done to make it fire so fast. It really just uses the laws of physics to do so. Sure, it can increase the fire rate significantly compared to just pulling the trigger each shot without one. But the thing I worry about is with banning these devices, what is an “acceptable” rate of fire for a semi-auto? People like Jerry Miculek can pull semi auto’s, let alone any gun, extremely fast. I’m just worried about the sort of “slippery slope” that it could lead to.

 

[JayTee]

Bump stocks allow a semiautomatic to act like an automatic weapon. Its a lot easier to kill a lot of people if you have an automatic weapon rather than a semiautomatic. If you want to prevent school shootings (which is where a lot of this gun control talk is coming from), banning them is... a start. Albeit a token gesture.

Arguing against it because of a so called slippery slope basically is a pretty poor argument because you're arguing against something that might happen. Whereas we know that making it harder to fire very quickly makes it harder for mass shootings to happen.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

Bump stocks allow a semiautomatic to act like an automatic weapon. Its a lot easier to kill a lot of people if you have an automatic weapon rather than a semiautomatic. If you want to prevent school shootings (which is where a lot of this gun control talk is coming from), banning them is... a start. Albeit a token gesture.

Arguing against it because of a so called slippery slope basically is a pretty poor argument because you're arguing against something that might happen. Whereas we know that making it harder to fire very quickly makes it harder for mass shootings to happen.

But the question becomes how fast is too fast? Some people can pull triggers pretty damn fast, faster than me for sure. You’re essentially putting a limit on how fast a semi auto firearm can fire. It’s semi auto, and while some semi auto’s can be fired faster than others depending on a number of variables, the question is how do you effectively regulate them without regulating semi auto’s in general? It’s one shot per trigger pull. What if someone has a fast trigger? What about bump firing without a bumpfire stock? I just don’t see how you regulate this without it getting into potential areas where we start down a so called, for a lack of a better term, slippery slope. How do you put a speed limit on how fast it can be fired? What is someone can physically fire it faster than the legal speed? Do you convict them for having a fast trigger finger? I just don’t see how this regulation can work.

The ATF and the Obama administration decided to not regulate bumpfire stocks due to the fact that it isn’t a mechanical thing that increases the fire rate of the weapon, like a selective fire switch that can go between semi and burst/full auto. It, again, uses the laws of physics to its advantage. It just seems like it’s almost an impossible thing to regulate, going off of prior rulings by the ATF and Obama’s administration, and by my own questions that I’ve raised in my own head about this.

Of course, again, this is just my opinion on the matter. I just don’t see how to regulate it.

 

[JayTee]

The difference between and automatic and 'pulling the trigger fast' is that one is machine assisted and the other is the result of a lot of effort put in to pulling a trigger.

A machined assisted trigger pull makes it so that anyone can put a lot of bullets in to a lot of people very easily. People who can pull a trigger real fast are pretty uncommon, and can really only do it in a controlled setting.

Removing the machined assisted aspect of a firearm (aka, automatic) from the general populace means that it'll be very hard for someone to buy and employ a weapon for the purpose of mass slaughter. WE did it once back in.. the 80s? 90s? I forget the exact date, but we did it once and gun violence went way down as a result. Then we repealed that law and they went back up again.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

The difference between and automatic and 'pulling the trigger fast' is that one is machine assisted and the other is the result of a lot of effort put in to pulling a trigger.

A machined assisted trigger pull makes it so that anyone can put a lot of bullets in to a lot of people very easily. People who can pull a trigger real fast are pretty uncommon, and can really only do it in a controlled setting.

Removing the machined assisted aspect of a firearm (aka, automatic) from the general populace means that it'll be very hard for someone to buy and employ a weapon for the purpose of mass slaughter. WE did it once back in.. the 80s? 90s? I forget the exact date, but we did it once and gun violence went way down as a result. Then we repealed that law and they went back up again.

Wait, are you referring to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act that outlawed the manufacture of selective fire (full auto and burst) for civilian ownership from May 19, 1986 forward? If so, the law was never repealed and is still in effect today. Even then, I don’t think it had any impact on crime due to the highly regulated nature of National Firearms Act (NFA) devices.

We seem to not understand each other right now, and I’m trying to see if we’re talking about different things.

What I was speaking about was bumpfire stocks. They are not legally or mechanically fully automatic firearms. What you were describing seemed as if they were selective fire (burst/full auto) weapons. Am I correct here? Because I do think we’re on two different pages here

 

[JayTee]

To use a really stupid metaphor, I think you're looking at a page, whereas I'm looking at a chapter.

Or to put it in a way that's less stupid, I'm speaking in broader terms (restricting the use of automatics or devices that enable automatic-like behavior in a firearm) whereas you're referring to a specific issue (bump sticks). Please correct me if I am mistaken.

And I was referring to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which upon further reflection had enough loopholes in it that it may well not have even existed.

That said, while the law I referred to wasn't as effective as it could have been, we know that other, much stricter gun control laws in other countries have been effective in preventing gun violence, so my overall point of more stringent gun control remains.

 

[Funkybub]

I aint letting no Goddamn commie in Washington take away my rights

 

[Peacemaker .45]

To use a really stupid metaphor, I think you're looking at a page, whereas I'm looking at a chapter.

Or to put it in a way that's less stupid, I'm speaking in broader terms (restricting the use of automatics or devices that enable automatic-like behavior in a firearm) whereas you're referring to a specific issue (bump sticks). Please correct me if I am mistaken.

And I was referring to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which upon further reflection had enough loopholes in it that it may well not have even existed.

That said, while the law I referred to wasn't as effective as it could have been, we know that other, much stricter gun control laws in other countries have been effective in preventing gun violence, so my overall point of more stringent gun control remains.

Oh you’re speaking about the federal assault weapons ban from ‘94-‘04. This is going back to an argument I made earlier on in this thread about why the bans are based on flawed logic on features of a rifle. But, nonetheless, with data from that period on crime with the ban, and data from states that have bans on certain rifles, shotguns and handguns by name/features, there really isn’t any conclusive link between them and less crime or less mass shootings, at least no statistical evidence that I find conclusive. FBI Uniform Crime Stats show that handguns make up the VAST majority of gun related crimes in the US, and that long guns (shotguns, rifles and muzzle loaders) make up an extremely small number that wouldn’t would have almost no statistical effect on crime in the US.

And, the US-Europe-Australia comparison is a whole different discussion to dive into, but there’s a lot that goes into that discussion. And, some of the numbers are surprising, especially for me.

But this is a WHOLE different discussion on gun control.

 

[JayTee]

I aint letting no Goddamn commie in Washington take away my rights

Namecalling isn't really useful in a discussion on gun control. I'd refrain from doing it if you want someone to take you seriously.

Oh you’re speaking about the federal assault weapons ban from ‘94-‘04. This is going back to an argument I made earlier on in this thread about why the bans are based on flawed logic on features of a rifle. But, nonetheless, with data from that period on crime with the ban, and data from states that have bans on certain rifles, shotguns and handguns by name/features, there really isn’t any conclusive link between them and less crime or less mass shootings, at least no statistical evidence that I find conclusive. FBI Uniform Crime Stats show that handguns make up the VAST majority of gun related crimes in the US, and that long guns (shotguns, rifles and muzzle loaders) make up an extremely small number that wouldn’t would have almost no statistical effect on crime in the US.

And, the US-Europe-Australia comparison is a whole different discussion to dive into, but there’s a lot that goes into that discussion. And, some of the numbers are surprising, especially for me.

But this is a WHOLE different discussion on gun control.

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier, the bill had enough loopholes and exceptions in it that it was functionally useless. That said, we do know for certain that stronger gun control means less gun violence, so despite enjoying my firearms, I'm okay with my guns being taken away if it means more people are safe from random acts of violence.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

Namecalling isn't really useful in a discussion on gun control. I'd refrain from doing it if you want someone to take you seriously.


Yeah, like I mentioned earlier, the bill had enough loopholes and exceptions in it that it was functionally useless. That said, we do know for certain that stronger gun control means less gun violence, so despite enjoying my firearms, I'm okay with my guns being taken away if it means more people are safe from random acts of violence.

Not necessarily does it mean a decrease in gun related violence. When we look at things, like Australia, the thing that needs to be looked at isn’t so much a reduction after the ban, but really a trend in firearm homicides and such over a long period of time before and after the bans being put in place. Trends need to be studied before and after a ban to see if the ban was being effective or if the ban came in a trend downward.

Since we’re on the subject, I particularly like this report on Australia for gun related things. I think it explains how trends are important in general for these comparisons. If you want to read it, here’s the link.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...d-crime-for-the-Australian-Parliament-Rev.pdf

Though, there are bipartisan things I think we can do in the US right now that can help reduce these shootings and such. I’d get into them right now, but admittedly I’m tired after shoveling snow today. I can get into some solutions tomorrow when I have time (and energy), but I think there are things that can reduce these tragedies without any sort of gun bans. I think there isn’t a middle ground we can go after, and really a middle ground that I think could be effective.

But I’ll get into that another time

 

[JayTee]

I feel using data obtained from Australia isn't as helpful as (last I checked) Australia doesn't have the same level of gun culture we do over in the states. Studies done exclusively in America indicate that greater gun control is more effective at preventing gun-related deaths, suicides, and violence in general.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

I feel using data obtained from Australia isn't as helpful as (last I checked) Australia doesn't have the same level of gun culture we do over in the states. Studies done exclusively in America indicate that greater gun control is more effective at preventing gun-related deaths, suicides, and violence in general.

But you brought up Australia originally, so I pointed to statistics from Australia.

I don’t think it really matters if a country has a gun culture or not. What matters are trends in certain subjects of crimes, suicide rate, homicides, etc. And really, having gun laws-or even banning them from private civilian ownership-won’t stop suicides. If we look elsewhere in the world, suicide rates are even higher per capita than the US, including countries that have far stricter gun laws, if not outright banning them from private civilian ownership.

Buisiness insider wrote an article based off of the World Health Organization’s collection of suicide rate numbers from various governments of various countries in the world. Here’s a link to it, but this one screenshot below shows that the suicide rates are much higher in other countries, like South Korea, where gun laws are extremely strict and private ownership is almost nonexistent. Yet, the suicide rate per 100,000 people is 26.3 as of 2009, whereas in the US it was 10.3 as of 2007. Suicide can be done in many ways, and a not being able to own a gun isn’t going to stop suicides, or even necessarily lower the rate, as shown in the chart below.

Correlation ≠ causation

 

[JayTee]

Nope, I never mentioned Australia, that was someone else.

You'd need to look at suicide rates by firearms if you want any meaningful data in regards to gun control, not suicide rates overall.

Also, no offense, but simply cherry picking a few pieces of largely data and claiming that greater gun control wont make a difference based off that is a really poor argument to make. Frankly I'm not even sure why you tried to make it.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

Nope, I never mentioned Australia, that was someone else.

You'd need to look at suicide rates by firearms if you want any meaningful data in regards to gun control, not suicide rates overall.

Also, no offense, but simply cherry picking a few pieces of largely data and claiming that greater gun control wont make a difference based off that is a really poor argument to make. Frankly I'm not even sure why you tried to make it.

But the argument you’re making is one based in the premise that less guns equals less suicide, or at least gun related suicides. The point I was trying to make is that less guns doesn’t equal a lower suicide rate in general. Sure, less guns might mean less gun-related suicides, but that doesn’t mean less suicides overall. There are far too many methods to suicide. Eliminating firearms isn’t going to stop suicides.

And no, I wasn’t cherry picking data. I was making a specific argument to (maybe I had the wrong premise) there being a lower general suicide rate if you eliminate firearms from the equation.

The way I’m interpreting your argument is less guns=less suicides. My response to that interpretation is that less guns≠less suicides.

if I’m interpreting it I correctly, restate the argument so I can then reply to the specific argument you’re making. I also do suggest using studies/sources as opposed to a Wikipedia article. I don’t feel they are good to use. Their sources, perhaps are, but the article itself I don’t recommend for an argument. Use their sources instead so the whole study/report/article can be read. I’d use the sources instead of the actual Wikipedia article itself on a topic.

 

[JayTee]

I think I see the issue here. I think I either failed to properly represent my argument, or there was a communications error somewhere that lead you to misinterpret my argument. Glad we caught this instead devolving in to talking at each other instead of with each other.

Anyway, the basic gist of my argument is that more gun control = less gun related violence. The form that violence takes can be in the form of anything from suicides, mass shootings, or murders, etc.

Most of the data we have is consistent with this, as indicated by the various sources in the wiki article I linked (I'm not blaming you for not wanting to read through each and every one, that'd be a slog and a half).

As I mentioned before, the biggest sticking point is the mystical "specialness" some people place on the 2nd amendment, and again, only a specific part of the 2nd amendment. Some people don't want to acknowledge that we live in a wildly different era than when that was written, and perhaps maybe allowing anyone to have unfettered access to a firearm might not be such a good idea.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

JayTee sorry, man, I’ve been busy, and will be this week. I can only get toso many things on here. I have RP posts I need to make and stuff. And admittedly, debating takes a lot of energy in research and stuff.

But don’t worry, I’m not done here. I didn’t concede or leave. When I have a chance, I’ll get around to responding to your last point. Just might take a little time, due to my busy schedule this week

 

[JayTee]

It's all good, but be aware that your absence means you conceded the debate, leaving me the final victor! Bwa ha ha ha ha!

In all seriousness though, I've sorta lost my zeal for the issue, so I might not continue with the discussion. Considering how you and I ended up being the only two people talking after a certain point, it might just be best to let the thread die.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

It's all good, but be aware that your absence means you conceded the debate, leaving me the final victor! Bwa ha ha ha ha!

In all seriousness though, I've sorta lost my zeal for the issue, so I might not continue with the discussion. Considering how you and I ended up being the only two people talking after a certain point, it might just be best to let the thread die.

Perhaps you’re right. Maybe we should just let it die.

Well, thank for participating then! I’m glad we could have a discussion free of insults. It seems rare these days to. Thanks for that and take care muh dude

 

[JayTee]

Ditto. I intended to mention in the last post, but I did appreciate how civil things were between us and how the discussion never really got heated. It was enjoyable while it lasted.

 

[Ghan]

I think something that was left out of this discussion was an explanation of why the 2nd Amendment exists at all. The purpose of putting that in the Bill of Rights during the drafting of the Constitution was not to allow people to go hunting or even to ensure a means of protecting against criminals. These purposes were all secondary to the purposes of the Founders.

Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 46 (The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46), in which he lays out why it is that in the new system of federal government that they were attempting to build, the idea that the central federal government would become destructive of the ends of the people is prevented by the existence of, to quote the Amendment directly, "a well regulated militia."

Quoting from Madison:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

Notice here how he constructs a situation in which the people are being opposed and frustrated by the very federal government the founders were in the process of setting up. Much of what concerned the founders about the form and function of the government they were creating was that it concentrated power in too small of an area. The founders were primarily afraid not of crime, but of the tyrannical nature of governance itself. The Bill of Rights is there to safeguard against the power of federal government.

To continue with Madison:

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands...

His purpose is to illustrate the absurdity of the numbers game between an army controlled by the federal government being set against the people, and a militia (2nd Amendment) composed of the people, nearly all of whom he assumes to be capable and willing to bear arms, and who number many times the men of the standing army.


The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide the citizens of the United States with the ability to, in case the federal government were to become abusive, alter, abolish, and/or replace it with a new government better suited to the protection of their freedoms and liberty.

The Declaration of Independence says as much:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Jefferson makes it very clear that it is not only an option, but rather the DUTY of the people to remove such an abusive government.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now having said that, I pose to you the absurdity of the notion that people of the United States today have as effective a means to accomplish this as they did in the year 1787. In a world where the US Armed Forces have attack helicopters, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and guided missiles, consider the disparity that has grown between the strength of the standing army (regardless of number of men) and the strength of the people armed with pistols, shotguns, and the oh-so-dreaded "assault rifle."

Does this concern you? Does it bother you to know that the intention was to provide the people the means to keep their government in check, yet now that seems almost laughable in the state of today's mechanisms of warfare? What of the US Military? Surely even a tyrant in office in government could not simply order rights abuses against the people and expect the rank and file to carry out such outrageous orders? What about when Japanese Americans were rounded up and detained in camps during World War II with no preservation of the right to a trial or other form of due process? Can you really convince yourself that the military always has a perfectly clear conscience?

Yet today we must endure an endless stream of argumentation about how we don't "need" an AR-15 or semi-automatic weapon. The average citizen is perfectly fine with a small pistol with 5 rounds, or no gun at all in most cases.
Not only does this seem to be a step in the wrong direction, it contradicts the very founding ideas of this country and the reason it was established.

Do you want a nation where you live at the behest of the government? Or would you rather have what the founders intended, which is a government that is YOURS. A government which is owned, operated, and controlled BY THE PEOPLE, and not the other way around.



Use wisely your power of choice.



Remember that the United States is, to borrow from Benjamin Franklin, "A Republic... if you can keep it."