The Big Gun Control Thread

Paleocon wrote:

Purely speculation on all of our parts, but I would surmise that the two are related (i.e.: fear of the criminals and gangs creates demand for firearms among suburbanites).

Except that we're at 50-year lows when it comes to actual crime statistics and yet gun sales are continually hitting records and manufacturers can't crank out enough ammo to keep up with demand. That's a pretty serious disconnect with reality.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Purely speculation on all of our parts, but I would surmise that the two are related (i.e.: fear of the criminals and gangs creates demand for firearms among suburbanites).

Except that we're at 50-year lows when it comes to actual crime statistics and yet gun sales are continually hitting records and manufacturers can't crank out enough ammo to keep up with demand. That's a pretty serious disconnect with reality.

I agree with that. Much of that is perception and the media fear machine. If you ask the average caucasian suburbanite, for instance, if the world (and particularly, the nation) is a safer or more dangerous place than it was when they were growing up, I suspect the answer would be the latter.

Canada definitely has a different culture and you need to look carefully at the long-gun handgun mix whenever you compare numbers. Same for many other countries.

The question stands though. Would better gun laws make a significant difference, or would smuggling / other take over from the easy access of today?

Paleocon wrote:

I agree with that. Much of that is perception and the media fear machine. If you ask the average caucasian suburbanite, for instance, if the world (and particularly, the nation) is a safer or more dangerous place than it was when they were growing up, I suspect the answer would be the latter.

And here's the root of the problem: the paranoid and terrified suburbanites are driving the gun policies of the country while he actual people who are victims of crime-related gun violence don't have a voice.

The residents of Flint and Chicago aren't screaming for more guns and loose concealed carry laws. They want fewer guns on the streets because they actually see the social costs of those weapons.

realityhack wrote:

The question stands though. Would better gun laws make a significant difference, or would smuggling / other take over from the easy access of today?

When we reach a point where it is easier for a convicted felon or a close relative to smuggle in a Chinese Made gun over going to a flea market, we can cross this hurdle.

This question has a sister "But won't the wind mills change wind patterns?" True coal is not directly changing wind patterns, but the surrounding areas around windmills are not death traps and epicentres of cancer death among children. When the air is cleaner, we can worry about the slower moving clouds.

Prioritisation and problem solving is a major feature of the human species, let's use it.

You are standing in in a burning 2 story building, worried that if you jump you might break your leg by making these propositions.

Guess I deserved that. But it was an honest intellectual exerciser. It's not like anyone here thinks I am against better gun control.

It may have come across as harsher than truth, but it is something that comes out in so many issues of progress. When we get to topics of gun control or the environment, these questions get a disproportionate amount of traffic.

Some critics of medical science postulate that as people live longer food will run out because the world will over-populate. Death is needed to keep the rest alive and fed.

But here is my rebuttal. If we solved one problem, why do you think we cannot solve the next one? This is the species and the nation that in under a decade went from no significant space program, to putting boots onto the moon. The US did not even have a reliable and functioning rocket when Kennedy proclaimed we would be on the moon before 1970. We laid an impossible telegraph cable across the Atlantic Ocean. Humanity built the pyramids with nothing but bronze chisels, stone hammers, and physics.

Sorry KG my response may have been less than perfect. I was halving a verrrrry slooooow typing fight with a Google rep at the same time.

I completely agree with the apply the solution, if another problem comes up address that idea (obviously checking for unintended consequences first).

And I completely agree that I sounded like a pro-shoot first nutball asking that question.
The only reason I did was that a combination of:
1. If we implemented gun laws people here have basically debated to the point of agreement most existing avenues for new guns would disappear.
2. I was talking with a couple of Swedes I work with and they brought up the question of other sources to feed the desire for guns on the street. Viewing the issue as more cultural than *exclusively* a specific pattern of weapon movement.

Personally I think the laws we discussed including universal registration and the right to shut down a gun dealer for too many guns ending up on the street without any further cause needed would all but illuminate straw purchases. Theft would be much more difficult with proper storage laws. And ongoing amnesty would slowly bleed down the number of guns available on the black market.
Couple that with appropriate social programs and we should have the start of a real solution.

Keep in mind that Canada has a level of gun control that is a fair bit stricter than the US. The writers of our constitution also weren't writing it under the spectre of British Invasion and/or civil war.

Kansas School Gun Law May Put Some Districts' Insurance In Jeopardy

Yeah, this school employees packing heat thing is really really not going to fly.

Robear wrote:
What do people think is an appropriate sentence for possession of an illegal weapon?

I proposed a long time ago that simple possession of a firearm in commission of a crime should merit immediate public execution in the street when discovery occurs. For some reason, that didn't seem to go over well.

But I suspect that anything less will not stop the problem. And since police summary execution is not realistic in any way (barring certain neighborhoods in NYC and LA), I believe we'll always have this problem. All we can do is try to limit the extent.

Don't sell the Bay area short, there's always fruitville station.

Realityhack wrote:

Robear wrote:

I proposed a long time ago that simple possession of a firearm in commission of a crime should merit immediate public execution in the street when discovery occurs. For some reason, that didn't seem to go over well.

Because that's insane?

Robear wrote:

I proposed a long time ago that simple possession of a firearm in commission of a crime should merit immediate public execution in the street when discovery occurs. For some reason, that didn't seem to go over well.

Because that's insane?

Robear wrote:

But I suspect that anything less will not stop the problem.

I don't think they do that in countries where gun violence is less of a problem. Our own murder rates have fluctuated greatly without Judge Dread's help. So I have to say I think there is plenty of room for improvement without becoming the totalitarian states of America.

You want me to ignore all your sarcasm markers, too? This was a colorful way of saying that the problem is cultural more than anything else, and unless you convince people that they are in *more* danger carrying a weapon than not, they will continue to do so to protect themselves (as they see it).

And after your last quoted line that makes me look like an asshole, I wrote:

And since police summary execution is not realistic in any way (barring certain neighborhoods in NYC and LA), I believe we'll always have this problem. All we can do is try to limit the extent.

If you took my suggestion as serious, in spite of the smiley and the disclaimer, than you missed the point. But since you decided to selectively edit solely to knock down an argument I didn't make, I'm gonna go with just plain trolling instead. Try quoting accurately next time, and if you're going to straw man, don't be so obvious about it.

Or possible a month ago when I wrote that post I was sleep deprived and thought you were serious, or thought someone might be and I would respond to the position or something... but seeing as it was a month ago I don't remember.

My apologies for treating your sarcasm as something else.

And I'm about to go into surgery, had not read the thread in a while and didn't realize the elapsed time. My apologies.

Good luck with your surgery Robear

Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt wrote:

“I think we have to push back in whatever smart way we can do to make sure that kids see, yeah having a gun is just as much fun as you thought it was when you were shooting your buddy with a water pistol yesterday.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...

Tanglebones wrote:
Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt wrote:

“I think we have to push back in whatever smart way we can do to make sure that kids see, yeah having a gun is just as much fun as you thought it was when you were shooting your buddy with a water pistol yesterday.”

Wow. It's like Larry Pratt is channeling a slightly darker and more irresponsible Cave Johnson for his talking points.

Tanglebones wrote:
Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt wrote:

“I think we have to push back in whatever smart way we can do to make sure that kids see, yeah having a gun is just as much fun as you thought it was when you were shooting your buddy with a water pistol yesterday.”

There are tactical training courses that would teach him how to better shoot from the hip.

If the hardline gun lobby continues its push to get guns in the hands of kids, is it possible the rate of accidental shooting deaths will outstrip the birth rate?*

*at least among whites?**

**named Junior?

And this is why the gun lobby is losing more and more hunters and trappers; at least the ones I know.

KingGorilla wrote:

And this is why the gun lobby is losing more and more hunters and trappers; at least the ones I know.

Well, that and the fact there are simply fewer hunters and trappers these days.

OG_slinger wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

And this is why the gun lobby is losing more and more hunters and trappers; at least the ones I know.

Well, that and the fact there are simply fewer hunters and trappers these days.

I don't know about the hunters and trappers, but I can say with absolute certainty that the whole Zimmerman business has very much soured me on the idea of getting a CCW permit. The very thought of having any common cause with that dumbass holster sniffer makes me physically ill.

OG_slinger wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

And this is why the gun lobby is losing more and more hunters and trappers; at least the ones I know.

Well, that and the fact there are simply fewer hunters and trappers these days.

I was raised around hunting and fishing. I started to help my dad clean rifles and shotguns when I was 4 (Hey hold this a minute). I see these gun advocates going so far afield from what I know as responsible gun ownership. And I see what I had to do to be licensed to hunt, compared what all states require to just own a gun, and what most states require to have you carry one in the streets.

Like Paleocon, it can be tough to be a fan of shooting sports and responsible gun ownership and education when the message is guns are cool, guns are fun, guns are just big boy toys. And then you get into my line of work, and I get to see the fruits of the NRA's labor in Chicago, Detroit, DC, LA, St. Louis, Baltimore, and the list goes on. Then you see their money trail into Stand Your Ground. They are promoting murder to sell guns and it makes me sick in my guts. And it makes me sick in my guts to think of how much money Remmington, Colt, S&W have gotten from me in the past to help the NRA or other groups do this.

I was actually just making the point that (a lot) fewer people are hunters these days. If you look at the number of hunting licenses issued each year you'll see that they've been on a steady decline for decades. A lot of that is simple urbanization. But it does mean that the idea of responsible gun ownership that you might remember from your childhood is becoming a bit of an endangered species.

But both your and Paleo's comment begs the question: where's the sane version of the NRA that represents you guys? The only NRA splinter groups of note are ones that broke away because they felt the NRA wasn't doing enough to promote gun rights.

Ducks Unlimited, largely. They have mainly contributed to conservation efforts, preservation of wetlands.

I have not found too many gun lobbies for responsible gun ownership. DU is about responsible hunting and nature conservation.

What I am also struggling with, are which fire-arm manufacturers are standing for responsible gun ownership and use.

KingGorilla wrote:

What I am also struggling with, are which fire-arm manufacturers are standing for responsible gun ownership and use.

Likely none that are publicly traded or owned by investment bankers. Profit must come first and profit means selling more and more firearms. And they also don't have to worry about liability or getting sued because Congress has specifically exempted them.

KingGorilla wrote:

Ducks Unlimited, largely. They have mainly contributed to conservation efforts, preservation of wetlands.

I have not found too many gun lobbies for responsible gun ownership. DU is about responsible hunting and nature conservation.

What I am also struggling with, are which fire-arm manufacturers are standing for responsible gun ownership and use.

In addition to Ducks Unlimited, I'd add the Boone and Crockett Club as a rational and responsible voice for gun owners, hunters, and big game conservation. The link above goes directly to their position statements on several important issues. I think many here would be surprised with what they have to say.

ringsnort wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt wrote:

“I think we have to push back in whatever smart way we can do to make sure that kids see, yeah having a gun is just as much fun as you thought it was when you were shooting your buddy with a water pistol yesterday.”

Wow. It's like Larry Pratt is channeling a slightly darker and more irresponsible Cave Johnson for his talking points.

Is there a smart way to do something that dumb?

OG_slinger wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What I am also struggling with, are which fire-arm manufacturers are standing for responsible gun ownership and use.

Likely none that are publicly traded or owned by investment bankers. Profit must come first and profit means selling more and more firearms. And they also don't have to worry about liability or getting sued because Congress has specifically exempted them.

I'd like to see just one NRA wag own up to the fact that the reason they can push "buy a gun to protect yourself from the bad guys with guns" angle so hard now is that so their past policies allowed so many guns to fall into the wrong hands. It's not like the mass of illegal and unregistered guns out there fell from the f*cking sky. Pretty much every gun in existence was manufactured to be sold at a profit by the same companies that are telling the rest of us to buy one for our own safety.