Gun control

[mpok1519]

Yes, but as long as there is evil in the world, that dream will never be possible.

Well not with that attitude. Its not easy eliminating evil with a can't do outlook.

 

[A2SG]

Prove that assault weapons 'are too freely available to people who shouldn't have them". Let's see your data, and along with it, the data that confirms the 1993 assault weapon ban made a significant impact. What? You have none? Just as I thought.

Two words: Adam Lanza.

-- A2SG, and are you seriously asking me to tell you how many people didn't get assault weapons during the ban? Think about that a sec....

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

No, I am asking you to prove that an assault weapons ban would have a significant impact on reducing gun related homicide.

 

[Vylo]

Yes, but as long as there is evil in the world, that dream will never be possible.

Also bears

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Two words: Adam Lanza.

-- A2SG, and are you seriously asking me to tell you how many people didn't get assault weapons during the ban? Think about that a sec....

Three words:

Gun Free School Zones Act

Unless you're going to propose federal legislation that subjects all assault weapons to seizure (which has it's own set of hurdles in the Constitution) another law would not have prevented Adam Lanza's shooting spree.

How many laws do you think he violated?

Theft.
Breaking and entering.
Murder.
Trespassing.
Destruction of school property
Unlawfully carrying a pistol
violation of the Gun Free School Zones Act
unlawful discharge of a firearm in city limits

Those are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head.

The prior assault weapons ban didn't prevent the North Hollywood Shootout.

What would another law for this guy to ignore accomplish?

 

[A2SG]

No, I am asking you to prove that an assault weapons ban would have a significant impact on reducing gun related homicide.

Oh, is that all? Sure, I'll prove a negative. And then, just for kicks, I'll draw a square circle!

-- A2SG, right after I create a rock so big I can't lift it....

 

[A2SG]

Three words:

Gun Free School Zones Act

Unless you're going to propose federal legislation that subjects all assault weapons to seizure (which has it's own set of hurdles in the Constitution) another law would not have prevented Adam Lanza's shooting spree.

How many laws do you think he violated?

Theft.
Breaking and entering.
Murder.
Trespassing.
Destruction of school property
Unlawfully carrying a pistol
violation of the Gun Free School Zones Act
unlawful discharge of a firearm in city limits

Those are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head.

All of which would have helped prosecute him after the fact...y'know, had he not killed himself after killing a bunch of first graders.

The prior assault weapons ban didn't prevent the North Hollywood Shootout.

What would another law for this guy to ignore accomplish?

Once again, making it harder for these nutjobs by not allowing weapons that can mow down dozens of first graders in a matter of seconds.

-- A2SG, seriously, what is so hard to understand about that....

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

All of which would have helped prosecute him after the fact...y'know, had he not killed himself after killing a bunch of first graders.

Which still didn't prevent it. The Gun Free School Zones Act was sure effective at denying people effective means of response, though.

Once again, making it harder for these nutjobs by not allowing weapons that can mow down dozens of first graders in a matter of seconds.

It had been in effect for three years. Unless you can snap your fingers and remove all the "assault weapons" every single piece of metal, every single piece of machining technology, shoot, every single basic hand tool, and the knowledge on how to make same, these nutjobs will still be able to figure out how to get a weapon.

A2SG, seriously, what is so hard to understand about that....

An assault weapons ban will not have any statistically meaningful effect on murder. What's so hard to understand about that?

I need a gun like Rosa Parks needed to sit at the front of the bus.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

No, I am asking you to prove that an assault weapons ban would have a significant impact on reducing gun related homicide.

They can't because it wouldn't.

People use assault weapons to commit less than 2% of murders.

Chances are if someone is going to load up a rifle to go shoot someone, they either won't be deterred by a law forbidding it, or they'll choose a different weapon. They probably won't not murder someone.

 

[A2SG]

Which still didn't prevent it.

True...on the other hand, requiring background checks for all gun sales might prevent future tragedies.

The Gun Free School Zones Act was sure effective at denying people effective means of response, though.

Sorry, i don't believe that more guns is a rational answer.

It had been in effect for three years. Unless you can snap your fingers and remove all the "assault weapons" every single piece of metal, every single piece of machining technology, shoot, every single basic hand tool, and the knowledge on how to make same, these nutjobs will still be able to figure out how to get a weapon.

True. And while I'd love to be able to snap my fingers and have that happen, I live in the real world where we can only do what we can.

Because doing nothing sure as hell doesn't work.

An assault weapons ban will not have any statistically meaningful effect on murder. What's so hard to understand about that?

20 kids may not be "statistical meaningful", but they sure as hell were meaningful to their families, and their loss will be felt for years to come.

I need a gun like Rosa Parks needed to sit at the front of the bus.

No, you don't.

-- A2SG, see, Rosa Parks had a legitimate reason for wanting to sit near the door, her feet were tired. What's your reason?

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Oh, is that all? Sure, I'll prove a negative. And then, just for kicks, I'll draw a square circle!

-- A2SG, right after I create a rock so big I can't lift it....

You make the claim, you prove it. That's how all discussion goes.
If it's your stated opinion that taking away people's weapons will mean a decrease in mass shootings, then it's up to you to prove this, it isn't up to your opponents to prove you wrong.

CoC(wonders how little some people know about how to have a discussion)

 

[Vylo]

Oh, is that all? Sure, I'll prove a negative. And then, just for kicks, I'll draw a square circle!

-- A2SG, right after I create a rock so big I can't lift it....

That's not actually proving a negative. You are stating a ban would do something, that is a positive statement.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

True...on the other hand, requiring background checks for all gun sales might prevent future tragedies.

No it wouldn't. It just means that crazy people who don't follow the law will find another way to obtain a firearm, like stealing it from a police station.

Sorry, i don't believe that more guns is a rational answer.

Why don't you believe that? At the Newtown school shooting, all of Lanza's victims were disarmed by the government. If one person there would have been legally allowed to have a firearm and been able to confront Lanza he could very well have given up. See, there are already "no guns" laws, and they haven't been successful, so clearly "no guns again" isn't a rational answer.

True. And while I'd love to be able to snap my fingers and have that happen, I live in the real world where we can only do what we can.

Because doing nothing sure as hell doesn't work.

What affect did the 1994 assault weapons ban have on the murder rate?

20 kids may not be "statistical meaningful", but they sure as hell were meaningful to their families, and their loss will be felt for years to come.

So what. It's basically a random event with no way of predicting it, which is not a valid way of making public policy, because if you can't predict something, you can't prevent it. Unless there's a clearly defined chain of events that show cause and effect, which does not exist here, because guns do not cause crime, then there is no valid policy reason to pass a law against guns. Rampant and irrational emotionalism doesn't suffice.

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

A2SG, see, Rosa Parks had a legitimate reason for wanting to sit near the door, her feet were tired. What's your reason?

Self defense. What's your reason for a law that will have no affect?

 

[A2SG]

You make the claim, you prove it. That's how all discussion goes.

Except that I never made the claim you're expecting me to prove. What's more, it's a claim that can't be proven, there's no way to know what crimes didn't happen because of the ban.

If it's your stated opinion that taking away people's weapons will mean a decrease in mass shootings,

It isn't.

then it's up to you to prove this, it isn't up to your opponents to prove you wrong.

Again, you're expecting me to prove that people didn't do something they might have under different legal circumstances. I can't do that, no one can.

Plus which, I never made any such claim.

CoC(wonders how little some people know about how to have a discussion)

Well, I know enough not to ask someone to prove a claim they never made.

-- A2SG, there's a term for that.... can't quite recall it off the top of my head....

 

[A2SG]

That's not actually proving a negative. You are stating a ban would do something, that is a positive statement.

No, I didn't.

At best, I've said it might help.

-- A2SG, and that doing nothing definitely won't.....

 

[A2SG]

No it wouldn't.

You don't know that for certain.

It just means that crazy people who don't follow the law will find another way to obtain a firearm, like stealing it from a police station.

Which is a lot harder than buying it at a gun show where they won't be subject to a background check.

Anything that makes it harder for that type of person to get weapons like that is a plus, in my book.

Why don't you believe that?

More guns = less gun violence? Doesn't compute.

At the Newtown school shooting, all of Lanza's victims were disarmed by the government. If one person there would have been legally allowed to have a firearm and been able to confront Lanza he could very well have given up. See, there are already "no guns" laws, and they haven't been successful, so clearly "no guns again" isn't a rational answer.

Sure it is. If we ban all guns outright, and cease the manufacturing of them forever more, there will be no more gun violence.

Simple!

Look, I know that's a fantasy, but the idea that arming kids or teachers is the way to prevent gun violence is just as much a fantasy.

What affect did the 1994 assault weapons ban have on the murder rate?

Dunno. You'll have to explain to me how we can figure out how many murders didn't happen because of it.

So what.

Your empathy is touching.

It's basically a random event with no way of predicting it, which is not a valid way of making public policy, because if you can't predict something, you can't prevent it.

So what, just give up?

By your logic, any crime is a random event with no way to predict is, so we should have no crime prevention policies whatsoever.

Sorry, I can't abide that as policy.

Unless there's a clearly defined chain of events that show cause and effect, which does not exist here, because guns do not cause crime, then there is no valid policy reason to pass a law against guns. Rampant and irrational emotionalism doesn't suffice.

But the proposed law isn't about guns, it's about the people who buy them and requiring they be able to pass a background check. Guns may not kill people, but people do. With guns.

I need a gun like Rosa Parks needed to sit at the front of the bus.

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

Thanks for that cogent argument.

Self defense. What's your reason for a law that will have no affect?

Prove that it will have no effect.

-- A2SG, I've already been asked to prove a negative, let's see someone else take a crack at it....

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

You don't know that for certain.

I've got enough doubt to make me oppose it.

Which is a lot harder than buying it at a gun show where they won't be subject to a background check.

The gun show loophole argument is insipid and patently false. If one buys a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, then that dealer is required to run a NICS check. If one is in the business of selling firearms, one is required to be a federally licensed dealer.

If a private citizen wants to sell a firearm to enhance his collection, or whatever, it's legal at a gun show, or in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart, and that person is prohibited from selling to a prohibited person. In my black market arms dealing experience, that means looking at a concealed pistol license.

Anything that makes it harder for that type of person to get weapons like that is a plus, in my book.

There's hundreds of millions of them out there.

More guns = less gun violence? Doesn't compute.

Violence is not necessarily a bad thing. Denying people effective means of defending themselves against those who initiate violence is a bad thing.

Sure it is. If we ban all guns outright, and cease the manufacturing of them forever more, there will be no more gun violence.

Not unless you can magically disappear all the guns in existence. That does not mean there would be no more violence. Shoot, in ancient Rome, there was no gun violence. Shoot we bring back decimation, the arena, crucifixion, and slavery?

Look, I know that's a fantasy, but the idea that arming kids or teachers is the way to prevent gun violence is just as much a fantasy.

No it's not. There's instances of good people with a gun stopping bad people with a gun. It offers them a chance. If they're denied a firearm, they're denied even a change.

Your empathy is touching.

Good.

So what, just give up?

By your logic, any crime is a random event with no way to predict is, so we should have no crime prevention policies whatsoever.

Sorry, I can't abide that as policy.

No. My logic was that mass shootings by crazy people are basically random events with no way to predict them. If there's no way to predict them, there's no way to prevent them, however, offering those whom they've selected as their would be victims the option of effective means of defense is a rational response.

If my research is correct, there's somewhere around 150,000 public and private schools in the US. If we wanted to tie down 12% of our police, we could put a cop in every school. Of course that cop then isn't out doing policey things. Giving teachers that want to the training to use a pistol is more a more cost effective option than tying up a sizable percentage of every police force.

But the proposed law isn't about guns, it's about the people who buy them and requiring they be able to pass a background check. Guns may not kill people, but people do. With guns.

And knives, and cars, and poison, and baseball bats, and fists.

Prove that it will have no effect.

People don't use them in crimes. So few assault weapons are used in crimes that the FBI doesn't collect statistics on it.

 

[A2SG]

I've got enough doubt to make me oppose it.

Allowing anyone at all to buy any and all weapons without any limits whatsoever is NOT a better idea. Requiring a background check for gun purchases is a thoroughly reasonable precaution.

The gun show loophole argument is insipid and patently false. If one buys a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, then that dealer is required to run a NICS check. If one is in the business of selling firearms, one is required to be a federally licensed dealer.

And yet, it happens. A lot.

If a private citizen wants to sell a firearm to enhance his collection, or whatever, it's legal at a gun show, or in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart, and that person is prohibited from selling to a prohibited person.

And yet, some do it anyway with no repercussions whatsoever.

That needs to end.

In my black market arms dealing experience, that means looking at a concealed pistol license.

No comment.

There's hundreds of millions of them out there.

All the more reason to limit their availability.

Violence is not necessarily a bad thing. Denying people effective means of defending themselves against those who initiate violence is a bad thing.

So who's advocating denying people an effective means to defend themselves?

Not unless you can magically disappear all the guns in existence. That does not mean there would be no more violence. Shoot, in ancient Rome, there was no gun violence. Shoot we bring back decimation, the arena, crucifixion, and slavery?

Keep reading....

No it's not. There's instances of good people with a gun stopping bad people with a gun. It offers them a chance. If they're denied a firearm, they're denied even a change.

I still cannot accept arming first grade teachers as a sane solution, no matter how many westerns some people watched as kids.

No. My logic was that mass shootings by crazy people are basically random events with no way to predict them. If there's no way to predict them, there's no way to prevent them, however, offering those whom they've selected as their would be victims the option of effective means of defense is a rational response.

Apparently we disagree on the definition of "rational."

If my research is correct, there's somewhere around 150,000 public and private schools in the US. If we wanted to tie down 12% of our police, we could put a cop in every school. Of course that cop then isn't out doing policey things.

Um, you do know what a police detail is, right?

Giving teachers that want to the training to use a pistol is more a more cost effective option than tying up a sizable percentage of every police force.

You and I truly do not live in the same reality.

And knives, and cars, and poison, and baseball bats, and fists.

All of which have uses that don't involve killing.

That cannot be said for a gun.

People don't use them in crimes. So few assault weapons are used in crimes that the FBI doesn't collect statistics on it.

I can think of a few, right off the top of my head.

And further, considering the number of gun related deaths we have already, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to limit the availability of weapons that make killing faster and more efficient.

-- A2SG, those statistically insignificant numbers you dismiss meant something to their parents and families.....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The gun control measures being debated in the Senate and in several states are not an attempt to do away with the Second Amendment. Don't forget, that amendment requires gun owners to be "well-regulated".

-- A2SG, the NRA would do well to read that part of the amendment, they tend to forget it's there.....

No, and a 'well regulated militia' isn't even a condition of arms ownership. Members of a not-very-well regulated militia would still have the right to keep and bear arms. As ambiguous as the amendment seems the 'right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' part is not. The amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Obligations.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Allowing anyone at all to buy any and all weapons without any limits whatsoever is NOT a better idea. Requiring a background check for gun purchases is a thoroughly reasonable precaution.

Why? We managed to survive for hundreds of years before we made people get a background check to buy a gun.

And yet, it happens. A lot.

Any evidence that those are FFL dealers?

And yet, some do it anyway with no repercussions whatsoever.

That needs to end.

It's already against the law to do that. So, why not enforce the existing law?

No comment.

Why not?

I probably shouldn't call it black market sales. It's perfectly legal.

So who's advocating denying people an effective means to defend themselves?

You are, as a matter of fact.

I still cannot accept arming first grade teachers as a sane solution, no matter how many westerns some people watched as kids.

Why can't you accept it? I merely want to offer those who are so inclined the option of arming themselves, as is available to them when they're not on school grounds, in many states. Or, in the case of Vermont, where these people don't need a permit from the government. Anyone can go to Vermont and strap a gun on, and wander around the streets.

Apparently we disagree on the definition of "rational."

Allowing people the means of self defense is not irrational.

Um, you do know what a police detail is, right?

There's still only 800,000 or so police officers in the United States. Somewhere around 10% of them are various forms of border agents, which leaves 700,000 or so. And yes, I go. Which means you tie down more than one police officer, if you were to put a police detail at every school. That's probably more police officers than there are on duty in the United States at any one time. Seems like a rational response, to me. LOL.

You and I truly do not live in the same reality.

Why not? If you allow teachers the option of receiving training and carrying a firearm on school grounds (the same thing they're allowed to do when they're not on school grounds) that's less costly than paying $80-100k a year to park a cop there.

All of which have uses that don't involve killing.

That cannot be said for a gun.

So then why do the police have guns?

I can think of a few, right off the top of my head.

And further, considering the number of gun related deaths we have already, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to limit the availability of weapons that make killing faster and more efficient.

-- A2SG, those statistically insignificant numbers you dismiss meant something to their parents and families.....

Almost half of those shooting were in so called "Gun Free Zones." (Schools.)

That's a definite argument that a law banning the possession of firearms works.