Biden Talks Gun Control Proposals

[Knife]

Banning mags won't work, there are just too many of them out there. The 94 AWB didn't work in that regard as well, you just bought 'pre ban' mags. I'm afraid Hav is right, go after the manufactures. Granted, just can't 'ban' manufactures, rather use taxes to go after cheap hand guns and high capacity weapons. I am, though, still a strong advocate of lists of people who should NOT have guns, funding registries and requiring mental health personnel to submit information about people who are at high risk for violence. The Second Amendment is in the constitution, therefore, we need more Federal laws to standardize the issue, not rely on 50 States jumble of laws. My opinion anyway.

[Grumman]

Granted, just can't 'ban' manufactures, rather use taxes to go after cheap hand guns and high capacity weapons. I am, though, still a strong advocate of lists of people who should NOT have guns, funding registries and requiring mental health personnel to submit information about people who are at high risk for violence.

Are "poor people" one of the items on that list? If not, your suggestion of a sin tax on handguns seems out of place.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You realize that those people likely consider people like Anwar to be enemy combatants, right? Anyway, you're focusing on one reason that people want to own firearms.

I do because the Duchess specifically brought it up, delusional and hypocritical as it is. Also, I accept your concession that gunwankers are OK with a tyrannical power-grab as long as they feel it targets only the "right" people. Not at all different from what authoritarian dictatorships have banked on in the past. When tyranny comes to America, wrapped in Red, White and Blue, the gunwankers will gladly aim their store-bought guns at whatever acceptable scapegoat Supreme Freedom Defender and Leader of Liberty Eternal Wilson F. Hittluh points them.

That's very poetic. Thank you. Again you input more potentially aggravating material and completely ignore my request for your input on the subject matter.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The well has been poisoned too much for research to do anything productive. Honestly, it's just like how we should halt all research into global warming in the US. The planet is fucked; people will ask for real answers instead of listening to Republicans and preachers when the weather around them starts to change intensely enough that they're directly impacted. Until then, research is just a lightning rod to inflame passions and thus probably serves to prolong the length of time it would take the US public to actually believe in global warming.

I just don't see it is as a productive or constructive addition to a debate this polarised. It's just like, nobody in America will give a fuck if we find a date at which a fetus becomes sapient. The battle lines are already drawn.

[Simon_Jester]

As for compromise in position: the gun grabber's ridiculous position is ban guns everywhere. The gun-nut position is no restriction. Obvious, right? But the starting point in negotiation is always from existing laws. And so generally speaking, the compromise point has been between existing laws, and ban them all. Now iterate. That is why the gun-nuts aren't willing to compromise. Because in the end, all compromise ends up doing is chipping away at their rights, slowly.

I think that sums it up rather neatly.

On issues like defense spending, all responsible parties agree that there should be some, and debate about how much. People can compromise there- I can ask for eleven carriers, you can ask for six, and we can compromise on eight or nine. Next year we compromise on a similar figure for something else.

But if I think there should be one gun per American, you think there should be zero, and we keep revisiting the issue year after year, the compromise result does not converge. You will always be pushing toward zero guns per citizen. Even if in 2050 you've already won all the battles you're fighting over today (i.e. assault weapons ban, high-capacity magazines ban, ID checks, wait periods...), you'll pick new battles to fight, because the end goal is total abolition.

Suppose defense spending were being discussed between a 'pro-military' party (even one that supported a relatively small military, the proportionate size of Germany's, say), and a total absolute pacifist party that opposed all military spending. We might run into the same problem- if we keep iteratively compromising with the pacifist position, the military is on a permanent downward ratchet, which can't be healthy in the long run.

And we do have that same problem with taxes, where one party is absolutely determined to never allow tax increases, while the other party is ambivalent about allowing them and things taxes 'might be about high enough,' so to speak. In a contest between a party that will compromise and one that won't, the compromisers either lose their shirt or find a way to change the terms of the contest.

The well has been poisoned too much for research to do anything productive. Honestly, it's just like how we should halt all research into global warming in the US. The planet is fucked; people will ask for real answers instead of listening to Republicans and preachers when the weather around them starts to change intensely enough that they're directly impacted. Until then, research is just a lightning rod to inflame passions and thus probably serves to prolong the length of time it would take the US public to actually believe in global warming.

[blinks]

...What?

I strongly disagree- because we will NEED that research to figure out the scope of the damage and consequences, at the time when it becomes obvious to everyone. It will be the research done in, say, the 2010-2030 timeframe that Americans (and everyone else) turn to when the US has its collective "holy shit" moment and realizes what a terrible mistake has been made.

Just because a bunch of lunatics are emotionally fraught about it doesn't mean we should stop even trying to collect information on the question. Scientific research has purposes other than informing policy discussion right this minute.

There's still a large percentage of the US population that doesn't believe in evolution. That doesn't mean we should quit doing research into how bacteria adapt to antibiotic use.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, I don't make any decisions, so why the hell does my opinion matter about anything? Oh right, it doesn't. Argument conceded.

[weemadando]

Well, I don't make any decisions, so why the hell does my opinion matter about anything? Oh right, it doesn't. Argument conceded.

Except your opinion does matter, because La Pierre talking crazy convinced you to give the NRA your money and support. So you've made a decision to back up your opinions with monetary and political support.

So don't try and hide from it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except your opinion does matter, because La Pierre talking crazy convinced you to give the NRA your money and support. So you've made a decision to back up your opinions with monetary and political support.

So don't try and hide from it.

Whatever. I'll never support gun control no matter what happens. There. You already think shit of me, Ando, why does this pettiness of your's matter? I conceded! Make of it what you will. I acknowledged my argument doesn't have a logical basis--I am not trying to hide from it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I mean, the honest fact is that I just view the world different from you, and nothing either of us can say will ever bridge that gap. Is it wrong to admit that?

[weemadando]

Thanks for your assumptions about my opinions. I might not like your politics. It doesn't make me hate you or discredit other stuff.

[Havok]

The problem with guns isn't clips or trigger discipline or crazy people, it's that gun companies keep making fucking guns. There are enough guns for every person in the United States to have one. It's time to stop making them. Do that and you will solve gun violence. Don't do it and gun violence will continue.
Amazing right? Something specifically designed to kill people is used for *GASP* violence and killing people.

http://gawker.com/5968807/down-with-big-gun

That article was a fucking brilliant piece on exactly that point Hav, along with many of the other issues with the "debate".

I wouldn't call it brilliant and the responses are predictable because he leaves himself open to them and the rest of the world isn't SDN. You can't bully and cuss your way through and argument because people will immediately tune you out or think you don't know what you are talking about.

That said, the points he makes are spot on. However the fundamental issue with this argument is how people perceive what guns at their core are for.

Me? They are for killing. People or animals. They are designed to provide the most efficient, accessible and comfortable way to take a life.

Other people. They are designed for self defense and that is it.

Now my point is base design with no intent other than the function and testing involved in the creation of the weapon. The other side is intent after creation and purchase which of course is in total denial mode that bad/crazy people can purchase with their own intent just as easily. But hey, if 30 kids get killed by a gun that isn't their problem and it better not infringe on their rights.

Of course if some toy killed 30 kids, it is off the shelf and the company is sued into almost non existence. Oh the priorities.

[Havok]

I mean, the honest fact is that I just view the world different from you, and nothing either of us can say will ever bridge that gap. Is it wrong to admit that?

To admit it? No. To admit your stance is illogical and just stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I concede! Shut up!" instead of reevaluating your way of thinking is.

And sorry, but your view of the world is not one that any of us want anywhere near lawmaking. You have proven that.
'

[weemadando]

The article isn't perfect, but it is the only piece I've seen this time around that looks at addressing the source/top down solutions rather than bottom up.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I mean, the honest fact is that I just view the world different from you, and nothing either of us can say will ever bridge that gap. Is it wrong to admit that?

To admit it? No. To admit your stance is illogical and just stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I concede! Shut up!" instead of reevaluating your way of thinking is.

And sorry, but your view of the world is not one that any of us want anywhere near lawmaking. You have proven that.
'

I don't recall having ever run for public office.

[Knife]

Granted, just can't 'ban' manufactures, rather use taxes to go after cheap hand guns and high capacity weapons. I am, though, still a strong advocate of lists of people who should NOT have guns, funding registries and requiring mental health personnel to submit information about people who are at high risk for violence.

Are "poor people" one of the items on that list? If not, your suggestion of a sin tax on handguns seems out of place.

Oh blah. The right to purchase and possess a weapon does not equal a right to a free or cheap weapon. You want a gun, buy a gun. I'm not saying a hand gun should be 10k, a decent weapon of reasonable quality is around $500 plus or minus a bit. Cheap $50 Saturday night specials are more of a worry than a 2K high grade target shooting weapon. You know what else would help poor people in dangerous areas? Armed guards, and they are free to get one too if they can afford it. Or, you know what would help in crime areas? Less cheap hand guns.

[Havok]

I have seen $700.00 H&Ks on the street for $100.00. Guns are only expensive in the store. The people that want them cheap know where to get them.

[Havok]

I mean, the honest fact is that I just view the world different from you, and nothing either of us can say will ever bridge that gap. Is it wrong to admit that?

To admit it? No. To admit your stance is illogical and just stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I concede! Shut up!" instead of reevaluating your way of thinking is.

And sorry, but your view of the world is not one that any of us want anywhere near lawmaking. You have proven that.
'

I don't recall having ever run for public office.

And the nation thanks you for that, as much of a laugher as it would be.

[Simon_Jester]

[Shrugs] What, Duchess in office? I've seen worse.



The gap of perception is a real issue for people who want to think about gun control rather than whine about it. There are some Americans who see guns as useless tools of destruction- with no logic they recognize behind why you should have a right to own them, they feel that by default you shouldn't be allowed to own them, any more than you should have a right to own fissiles.

There are others who see gun ownership as a right it actually makes sense to hang onto, and who make the same kind of theoretical arguments for it that they'd make for free speech or the right to a public trial. These theoretical arguments obviously don't come up in real life all the time.

I sometimes think that most people in each of these camps just has NO grasp of what is going through the other's mind. Or is so busy holding it in contempt that they don't bother to engage it.

Which I find intensely frustrating, since I'd like to see some kind of rational gun control regime in America that wouldn't predictably get turned into "OK, now that we have a registry let's ban everything!" Neither side wants to humor that anymore.

[Knife]

I have seen $700.00 H&Ks on the street for $100.00. Guns are only expensive in the store. The people that want them cheap know where to get them.

Which is why I agree with you that we need to start working on limiting the amount. Steal a $800 gun and sell it on the street for $100 is easy money and puts that gun out there. That said, a lot more 'cheap' guns are made and not properly locked up. Few people who buy $500-$1000 guns just leave them around their kitchen. Once you start decreasing the amount of weapons made, there will be price gouging, pure and simple. Hell, you can see that now, without any real effort to 'ban guns' and the silly AWB they are proposing already has people out there buying like the apocolypse. Gun and ammo prices are going up. Any sort of ban/gun control will effect these prices, so if you're serious about doing this, expect it to happen. Once the price goes up, expect theft and what not to go up as well, easy to steal weapons will get stolen and sold on the street for 'cheaper' amounts.

We basically have a surplus of inventory, stop the manufacture of that item, doesn't change the fact we have a surplus and until that works it's way through, the problems will stay the same. This would be a long term solution, not a quick and easy fix.

Edit: bad spelling.

[Havok]

Interesting thought: What if gun manufacturers spearheaded the reduction in gun manufacturing while increasing the costs of their products?
Like you said, people that want them will pay to be manly and perhaps having something of more value will prompt owners to be far more careful with storage since obviously financial worth is clearly more of a driving factor to Americans than the value of life.

Of course you still have the Genie in the bottle problem to deal with.

[Shrugs] What, Duchess in office? I've seen worse.

No you haven't.

As to the rest of your point, I (not everyone I admit) recognize both sides of the argument just fine.

You have to protect against people like Hitler. Governmental Tyranny is a very real thing. Some people think it is happening right now in fact.
I'm sorry that people think that in "this day and age" no one like that can rise to power again, but they are wrong. What I think is ironic is that if someone like that does come to power in America, it will be from the Right and all the Pro-Gun people.

At the same time, even one death that can be averted by getting guns off the street should be a goal worth chasing. One gun per adult aged citizen unless cause is shown to own more. There is zero reason to have more than two really and there is no argument out there that can prove otherwise. One for home or self defense, and one for your chosen recreational use. Whether that be hunting or target shooting or whatever. Sorry but your right to feel cool and "safe" is not worth more than even one person's life.

Both arguments are valid and hold water. It is really the propaganda on both sides, more the pro side obviously though, that I rail against.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Since high-capacity magazines really don't have much purpose in the legitimate roles of gun ownership, and don't bar big categories of guns (you could always take something with a 15-round magazine and build lower-capacity ones for it, right?)... it seems like a logical thing to put a ban on. Much more so than, say, silencers.

I guess that depends on how we define high capacity and how you define legitimate role of gun ownership. I'd define high capacity as anything higher than what the military or law enforcement is issued. As for legitimate role of gun ownership. Well, those typical size magazines fill just about each one just fine.

[Block]

So I have an honest question, why do civilians need anything more than a bolt action weapon? If you say you need it for self defense, you're only going to get one or two shots off with a semi-auto before the person closes the ground on you to where you can't shoot them anyways, if it's for hunting, if you're not good enough to hit with your first shot, you suck, and if it's for entertainment, well fuck you I don't care about that. So, seriously, why allow magazines on weapons at all?

[the atom]

Also, I guess it kind of obscures the point that even though I acknowledge it isn't true in other democracies, I believe that in the United States are peculiar socio-cultural conditions make firearms our only real defence against tyranny, so all of these gun violence statistics in day to day life will just obfuscate the point that we need guns to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government here.

And how exactly is that supposed that work? Is one supposed to go out and shoot politicians who are trying to pass unfavourable legislation? Or are people supposed to fire them at tanks and drones once Space Hitler decides it's time to come for their guns?

However it's supposed to work, it quite plainly hasn't done anything to prevent the government from eroding constitutional rights and civil liberties thus far (where were the armed patriots during the Libel and Sedition act?), so I see no particular reason that they would somehow become a million times more effective at affecting legislation once the constitution is abolished and the government is replaced by a politburo in an election or something.

[Alyeska]

So I have an honest question, why do civilians need anything more than a bolt action weapon? If you say you need it for self defense, you're only going to get one or two shots off with a semi-auto before the person closes the ground on you to where you can't shoot them anyways, if it's for hunting, if you're not good enough to hit with your first shot, you suck, and if it's for entertainment, well fuck you I don't care about that. So, seriously, why allow magazines on weapons at all?

Bolt action weapons use internal magazines. So no magazine means single shot, reload after every single shot.

Banning ejecting magazines would do fuck all to stop gun deaths because that would leave revolvers and internal magazines completely unmolested. So you've banned something without actually accomplishing anything of significance, but managed to irritate law abiding gun owners who weren't doing anything wrong to begin with.

And even non semi auto weapons use magazines. Many bolt action weapons have magazines. And the practical difference between a semi auto and a revolver, or a bolt action, or a pump. Its fairly minimal for civilian use. Semi autos have a higher rate of fire, sure. But at the expense of accuracy without practice. The military trains for a sustained rate of fire of 15 shots per minute with the M16. That happens to be the same rate of fire from World War 1 using bolt action rifles. Why 15? Take the time to aim.

[Block]

Bolt action weapons use internal magazines. So no magazine means single shot, reload after every single shot.

Some do, some don't. There are many single shot bolt action weapons where you have to insert a round into the chamber manually.

Banning ejecting magazines would do fuck all to stop gun deaths because that would leave revolvers and internal magazines completely unmolested. So you've banned something without actually accomplishing anything of significance, but managed to irritate law abiding gun owners who weren't doing anything wrong to begin with.

Yeah, I'm talking about banning all weapons that don't force a manual reload between shots, and that WILL if nothing else drop casualty numbers if that's they type of wepon people are forced to use in shootings. Frankly I don't give a shit what inconveinces people if it accomplishes that aim without infringing on their rights, which it doesn't unless you can point to where in the 2nd amendment it says you have a right to bear modern firearms as opposed to just...arms.

The military trains for a sustained rate of fire of 15 shots per minute with the M16. That happens to be the same rate of fire from World War 1 using bolt action rifles. Why 15? Take the time to aim.

No, we train for a rate of fire of 30 rounds per minute actually. Infantry school it was actually even higher than that due to the focus on urban operations.