Grayhome wrote:Every response you have given is either complete fiction, in complete and total denial of reality, or a petty argument over the definitions of word usage.
Your just a troll, aren't you.
Differing conclusions do not make me a troll, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Some of my arguments may be petty, but with the episodic replies that I've been making recently that's somewhat inevitable; because of the speed of the computer that I write these posts on, this particular post took several
hours to write. There's a very sharp limit to the editing that I'm willing to do.
Grayhome wrote:Criminals will still retain those guns. How exactly will gun control help at all? Even if it did illegal guns can still be brought in, and guns at still easily be made.
The same way having driving licenses helps keep people that shouldn't be driving off the roads.
Uh... you do realize that people without driving licenses
don't stay off the road, right? Before he died (from a heart attack that was probably brought on, either directly or otherwise, by alcohol), I used to know someone who'd had his license revoked (he didn't give me the impression that he disagreed with that either, he just wasn't sticking to it tightly) but still drove every once in a while. Before he died, he'd apparently been worrying that he would get caught.
Grayhome wrote:Also, it is not easy to make guns. It requires specific resources, knowledge and tools to craft an effective weapon that does not immediately blow up in your own hands.
Such as an Afghani blacksmith, or anyone with a decent knowledge of material physics and access to shop tools, yes. Military-grade weaponry? That needs to be accurate over a distance, so you can't get away with anything less than professional-grade work, but for a gang war or to shoot up some helpless bystanders? You're talking about gun-and-runs, short-range, etc., which means that you only need limited accuracy, reasonably quick fire (and let's be frank: you may even go with an external power source for that), and for the gun not to explode. The only one of those that's even half-way difficult is the second of the three, and if you can build anything mechanical in the first place, then you can spend some time to solve that.
And then there's the consumerization of 3d printing, which just makes it easier.
Grayhome wrote:And saying "they can bring guns in from elsewhere so we should not ban assault weapons" is like saying "they can ship cocaine in from elsewhere so we should not ban cocaine". It makes absolutely no sense and I think that the law enforcement agencies of the United States would not be advocating to ban all assault weapons if it would not be effective in keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals.
"They can bring marihuana in from elsewhere, so we shouldn't ban marihuana" and "They can bring alcohol in from elsewhere, so we shouldn't ban alcohol" are both known to be true, we just haven't finished accepting the first of those two yet. Shoot, I probably wouldn't vote in favor of legalizing marihuana in the first place if given a chance despite saying that, since I don't agree with being a druggie. None the less, we know that it's accurate, and that nothing we can do to try to change the world is actually going to change
that. Thus, if we want to see success we need to turn our sights towards fixing the same problem in a different way.
Grayhome wrote:My father has made a number of shot guns.
I would think that the difference between a home-made shotgun without high capacity ammo clips and a factory crafted assault rifle with a thirty round magazine should be fairly apparent.
The biggest difference is that you're more likely to hit with the shotgun, hence the reason why they're traditionally used for hunting small, agile animals such as birds. The average gun fatality in the US is gang-related, and the common firing technique in those instances is spray-and-pray (though in the gangs that send new recruits to join the military, this is presumably less-so), for the simple fact that they don't have much experience in actually using the weapons, and therefor aren't very good at hitting what they're aiming at. A late-1800's handgun is accurate enough (at least if properly maintained, and not worn out) to shoot the symbol in a playing card at several yards (it was a neat show, but I didn't care enough to actually memorize any stats) if used by an experienced shooter, and do so reliably. Go look up trick-shooting if you haven't ever seen it. Guns started getting so accurate some time in the 1800's that they killed off duels. It wasn't because the duels were illegalized (duels were performed for quite some time in states that had already illegalized them), but instead that the guns had gotten good enough that if you were
lucky then only
one of the participants would get hit.
So why are guns so
safe for their targets when in the hands of most gang members, despite being so dangerous in the hands of the proficient? Because the gang members are lousy at hitting anything. This is why magazine restrictions actually could help things, were it not for how easy it would be for someone less than above-the-board (and as has already been shown, almost already is for
anyone with a 3d printer) to just make high-capacity magazines: lower the magazine capacity, and you greatly reduce the chances of anyone getting hit.
discord wrote:assault weapon ban:
silly, because it affects something like 1% of gun related deaths, those weapons probably have a higher average accident numbers(US military training, probably lower rate, just so many a small percentage gives a high total number.) and not relating who uses them, i would bet that it is more commonly used(somewhere along the lines of 10:1) in defensive shootings against criminals.
From what I remember from the last time that I looked it up, it was actually worse than that. Assault weapons as described in the ban are primarily (and maybe entirely: it's been a while since I checked) long-arm guns with non-rifle-style grips (e.g. pistol grips, folding butt-stocks, maybe vertical handles mounted near the front of the gun, etc.). There might
maybe be some situation where these would be used in gun violence, but you're basically looking at nonsensical circumstances and statistics, even for the self-defense case. I wouldn't be surprised if it was around the same statistical level as cast iron skillets (goodness knows one of those would work as a blunt-trauma weapon). A carbine is the longest firearm that I would expect to be useful for most self-defense situations, and both pistols and machine-pistols would surely be far more appropriate than that.
Frankly, assault weapons are for gun-range enthusiasts, and hunters who like to bling it up like a peacock.
discord wrote:how difficult is it to comprehend that legal guns are very seldom used in crime? and that removing legal guns gives perception of easier prey, which leads to more violent crime.
-------------------------------------------
yes, gun ban can be done, BUT it must be done in a similar way as the japanese sword hunts, search every home, every person, EVERYWHERE, and have a isolationist country to limit smuggling.
For that matter, the sword-hunt was to prevent (or at least reduce) insurrections.
Grayhome wrote:assault weapon ban:
silly, because it affects something like 1% of gun related deaths, those weapons probably have a higher average accident numbers(US military training, probably lower rate, just so many a small percentage gives a high total number.) and not relating who uses them, i would bet that it is more commonly used(somewhere along the lines of 10:1) in defensive shootings against criminals.
because generally criminals do not use 'assault weapons'.
so a ban would do....somewhere between nothing to net detriment. it is fear of such weapons that fuels this ban hammer approach not their actual use.
An outright ban on all assault weapons and heavy regulation upon all other firearms would significantly lessen the firearm related violence in the United States,
It's already known that there are enough guns in the US to last for at least a hundred years. To make a dent in that you have to seize guns from everyone who has them, which among other things requires knowing who has them. There were a number of guns that one of my grandfathers had which we would have liked to either sell (some pieces were worth quite a lot) or keep (for sentimental and/or quality reasons), but when my father went to look at the house after the funeral, he and his brother determined that said grandfather's girlfriend had her relatives loot the place. Do you think that you can keep track of guns in a society where such things happen? After all, with the common behavior of people in relationships such things are never going to be rare.
Next: you know how Japan doesn't have much gun crime, and what they do have is basically always possession? The Japanese gangs
do have guns, and it isn't as if it'll ever be particularly difficult for them to get them. The Yakuza have sufficient organization to just have the things scratch-built if they need to. So why does Japan not have much gun violence, when the groups that cause most such violence in the US are the same type as tend to have the guns in Japan? Society. Japanese Yakuza are organized groups with older, cooler heads at the top, while your average American gang doesn't have much mature leadership. A lack of adult intervention can both cause, and perpetuate, some very nasty stuff, and by the same token can stop it when said leadership actually decides to do so: witness the Watts Truce and Hoe Avenue meeting.
You want to reduce gun violence? Forget about the guns, they do nothing more than distract you. The real problem is always social chaos in one manifestation or another. If you don't get rid of that then even removing
every gun from the
world won't bring peace, because the real causes haven't been so much as
touched.
Grayhome wrote:and would lessen violent deaths in general.
Without fixing underlying tensions and distortions you only shift the form of violence. In the worst case you shift it to pipe bombs, which has the potential to make things even worse since those don't necessarily require someone to be present to use them, thereby loosening one of the sources of self-control.
Grayhome wrote:As evidence of this I present the other industrialized nations of planet earth, who have far fewer guns in civilian hands, far more gun regulation, and thus a higher quality of life than do Americans.
That is indicative of better social management, not gun control... or so I would say, if I didn't remember that France had rioting in the suburbs of Paris a few years ago. When was it that we last had a proper riot, back in the 90's?
Grayhome wrote:Also it is fear of terrorists gaining access to nuclear armaments which promotes the international community to keep nuclear materials out of terrorist hands. This has so far proven a very viable strategy.
Nuclear weapons pose the threat of effectively "salting the earth" for at least a few decades. The consequences of a gun are much smaller, and a gun itself is also much easier to make (e.g. you aren't likely to die in the process of
building a gun if you screw up).
Grayhome wrote:[rage rant]
that is what pisses me off, the basic approach is wrong, fundamental idea flawed, historical data does not back up your claim.
[/rage rant]
All historical data backs up my claim, and there is no historical data that anyone on this site has provided that does anything other than strengthen my claim. I am a political scientist. I have quite literally devoted my life to studying social issues such as firearm related violence in order to assist in their correction.
Then demonstrate how gun laws are more effective than repairing the fabric of society. I don't care what tunnel your vision is focused on, when you actually look at the categories of gun violence you find a very short list, where the entries are typified by diseases of society itself. A band-aid like gun control does not fix the gaping wound underneath, nor are stitches an alternative to a heart transplant.
You need to widen your sight to look at the surrounding context, instead of just the fact that guns can be used to kill people. Common household chemicals can be used to kill people too, and with the dual existence of the Internet and the Anarchist's Cookbook it isn't difficult to get the information that you need to make bombs. The Unibomber was at large for how long? Do you want to know what'll happen if some gang decides that since they don't have guns, they'll switch to big model airplanes with bombs strapped underneath instead? Or figure out how to home-brew some (let us all hope weak) solid rocket fuel for some rockets? Those wouldn't even require as good of craftsmanship as a gun, just cautious treatment of the chemicals. Stop wasting time on ideas that are either
already out-maneuvered, or
in the process of being out-maneuvered, and move on to productive responses that won't be made antiquated by technology within a decade (or two years, whichever).
discord wrote:and on the PR, one of the things i REALLY hate, is that you are allowed to be passionate, incoherent, rambling without statistics to back up your claims and screaming child murderer at random as a gun banner, but if you talk for guns, if you are even upset, you are suddenly public enemy number one.... classic case of ad hominem, but noone can call out the gun banners on it it seems without getting the same label themselves, not fair, just not fair.
In their defense, I don't think it's intentional most of the time. They just feel very strongly on the issue, which causes their vision to become clouded. Then you get those who (rather understandably) don't agree with giving e.g. gangs any form of official interaction with the government other than prosecution, because they think that it legitimates those same gangs, and you can easily wind up in a situation where they strongly feel that something needs to be done, and the only option that they can both imagine
and are willing to agree with is gun control, so they decide that only that will work, that it is obvious that it will work, and that therefor anyone who opposes it is doing so because they oppose what gun control advocates believe will be the result of gun control.