The Great Gun Control Debate Megathread

[Cassius]

So I pitched it and the admins approved it--outside of exceptions that have already been made, this is the ONLY thread in The Armory where the pros and cons of Gun Control can be debated. Actually, the title is a misnomer, because I am totally cool with you guys debating controlled access to all sorts of weapons. Guns, knives, explosive, pepper spray, tazers, whatever you want. Go nuts!

To get things kicked off on what I hope will become a completely ridiculous thread, I will summarize my own views on gun control:

1.) Feel free to assume I think any gun control law I don't specifically mention is stupid.
2.) Magazine capacity bans are idiotic.
3.) Open Carry/Concealed Carry restrictions are stupid.
4.) Assault Weapons bans are stupid.
5.) NFA laws governing suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs are stupid.
6.) "Weapons free" zones are stupid.
7.) Any law controlling access to or carry of any type of bladed weapon, stun gun, tazer, etc, is--you guessed it--stupid.

Areas where I am willing to consider firearms regulation:

1.) I am willing to consider the possibility that background checks serve as a deterrent for criminals. I do not believe this, but if I accept at face value the idea that the vast majority of defensive gun uses are not reported (which I do believe), then I am at least willing to consider that there is merit in background checks.

2.) I am willing to consider the possibility that select fire weapons should be subject to a more thorough background check, and MAYBE a 7 day waiting period, though I am not convinced. Why? Because it takes almost no skill whatsoever to modify a number of semi-auto firearms to operate in a select fire manner. As is, the current laws governing select fire weapons are ridiculous and need to go.

3.) I am willing to consider stiffer penalties for criminals who use deadly weapons

Finally, the most important reason I believe firearms ban to be stupid is that I think governments that are given sole monopoly over legitimized violence are likely to abuse it. I genuinely believe that it is healthy for our elected officials to live in fear of being run out of town by a violent mob. Creating a caste system of "haves" and "have nots," as has been done in the U.S., does not in any way whatsoever deter crime. In fact, if you recharacterized all crimes that fit the bill to either "fallout from the war on drugs" or "gang-related violence," a lot of "gun crimes" would cease to exist.

[plasma]

I am really hit or miss on this subject because I can see both sides and have lived in both extremes (open carry vs all firearms illegal).

After living in Europe for the last 2 years I will say gun control does work. I can count the amount of shootings I’ve seen in the news on 1 hand, something I couldn’t do monthly in the States. However, I cannot ignore that the first thing dictators do is disarm their people to maintain their power. Additionally, I love the fact that no country would even think about invading U.S. soil because of our armed population.

Lastly, I will say the open-carry movement has changed my mind in the last year. The idiocy of that movement really soured against anti-gun control movement.

[tgace]

Either America is still based on the idea that each of us are free and that the concept of the government "trusting us with...." is outrageous. Or we turn into what many of our ancestors fled Europe for in the first place.

[DARPAChief]

It is staggering how complicated we can make things. In the US and abroad, I believe "gun control" politics are largely the product of public ignorance and government negligence.

For the most part, nobody anywhere honestly has a problem with people genuinely defending themselves, and there are real-world examples that make it undoubtedly clear that some emergencies demand the use of a firearm. Examples like this one:

http://wtkr.com/2015/03/12/mother-sh...oddler-inside/

If that was Canada, that mother might have been charged by the crown for anything from murder to "improper storage of a firearm." It's part of the repulsive trend in our politics that targets victims and runs them through a legal meat grinder. See, in a country like Canada you have the right to self-defense, but you ostensibly aren't allowed to possess a firearm for self-defense unless you're somebody important with political connections or you're doing something important like transporting money.

Such is the perverse side of controlling weapons, but not everyone should be armed. Some of us just can't be responsible with dangerous things, and other people move too quickly into the disciplined world of weapon ownership. There has got to be a lowest common denominator of dumbasses and sociopaths that we can screen for with some level of testing, be it a background check, licensing, certification, or whatever.

[Bneterasedmynam]

I can't believe this thread doesn't have at least a 100,000 posts by now, come on people it's the debate the armory has been waiting for.

Anyway the first post has godwin x 4, that's impressive even by my standards. I do agree that most if not all of the points made about the stupidity of the current laws is true. But using some of the worst nut-bags in history is a bit much. I really think the biggest threat to gun ownership isn't from the government, but rather the media. Every bullet that gets fired is on the fucking news now, it's a bit ridiculous. The fear it generates drives the anti-gun movement. But fear seems to be the America of today. Fear of guns, drones, cops, cameras and everything else.

[DARPAChief]

I'm a little divided about the quad-godwinning myself. It's not untrue that tyrannical regimes like to disarm their people, but if you don't account for some more nuance to that statement you risk coming across as reductive. Quoting Stalin might be a good place to start:

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?

[Cassius]

That's an excellent quote DARPA: "We would not let our enemies have guns." What does that say about the anti-gun movement?

[jnp]

There are so many firearms in the U.S. that the idea of restricting gun ownership is ridiculous.

"Why is that?", you ask.

Because even if you are dumb enough to trust that the government will never violate their contract to protect the public, there are more than a few criminals who possess firearms and are quite willing to use them. Therefore, taking away firearms from the law abiding public will leave them defenseless against said criminals.

Maybe if there weren't such a huge number of guns in this country, gun control would work like it does in other countries, but that is simply not the case here in the U.S. In our case, Pandora has opened the box and millions of firearms are in the hands of both good and bad people.

Taking weapons away from the "good" people will only result in the "bad" people having free reign to abuse the "good".

Edit: Concerning the government, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that the public possesses firearms is both an incentive and an insurance policy that encourages said government to behave appropriately.

[plasma]

As Bullshido is very "pro-gun" I am going to play devil's advocate to facilitate discussion. JNP the same argument could be made in Australia a few decades ago. However, laws and the destruction of fireams had great affect over the years there.

So the question I have is we license people to drive, why not license people to carry/own firearms? Or have people register firearms to have better tracking of how and where criminals are getting these firearms. Right now the ATF has very little power in that right. However, if Weapons Manufacturer A produces Pistol "P-AYZJUYZ234S" which is bought from Gun Store B by Person C, who then reports it stolen and ends up in Robbery D. The suspect is caught by the Police, they would have a better idea how this criminal was linked to the Person C's stolen pistol. What is wrong with that? I don't buy the slippy slope "registration is the first step to confiscation argument"

[jnp]

As Bullshido is very "pro-gun" I am going to play devil's advocate to facilitate discussion. JNP the same argument could be made in Australia a few decades ago. However, laws and the destruction of fireams had great affect over the years there.

So the question I have is we license people to drive, why not license people to carry/own firearms? Or have people register firearms to have better tracking of how and where criminals are getting these firearms. Right now the ATF has very little power in that right. However, if Weapons Manufacturer A produces Pistol "P-AYZJUYZ234S" which is bought from Gun Store B by Person C, who then reports it stolen and ends up in Robbery D. The suspect is caught by the Police, they would have a better idea how this criminal was linked to the Person C's stolen pistol. What is wrong with that? I don't buy the slippy slope "registration is the first step to confiscation argument"

Personally, I have no problem with registering firearms. Mine are registered. I also believe that background checks are a good idea. It's a felony in the U.S. to buy a gun for someone else. Statutes that help ensure guns are sold to law-abiding citizens are good laws in my opinion.

I do think comparison to other government's firearm elimination programs is somewhat flawed however. There is no nation on Earth that has a comparable number of firearms in the hands of the private populace as the U.S. does. As a consequence, a significant number of them will remain in possession of persons who are not law-abiding citizens for decades to come.

[ChenPengFi]

Much more here:
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control...her-countries/

[mike321]

I have trouble advocating taking weapons because of responsibility. If I disarm someone I feel a responsibility to protect them. If I leave them alone i have not assumed this responsibility. This is not an original thought on my part but it does capture my thinking. So question, does arms control create a duty to protect those you disarm?

[Devil]

However, if Weapons Manufacturer A produces Pistol "P-AYZJUYZ234S" which is bought from Gun Store B by Person C, who then reports it stolen and ends up in Robbery D. The suspect is caught by the Police, they would have a better idea how this criminal was linked to the Person C's stolen pistol. What is wrong with that?

Please explain how that is different than what we already have. You do realize every firearm manufactured in the United States has a serial number, right? That's a federal requirement. What you described is exactly what happens already.

Please see ATF Form 4473.

[goodlun]

Guns per Capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

Murder Rate per capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

No correlation

While correlation doesn't = causality
Its hard to have Causality without correlation

I am not seeing a compelling reason that the people of the United States should not be able to own guns.

[plasma]

Please explain how that is different than what we already have. You do realize every firearm manufactured in the United States has a serial number, right? That's a federal requirement. What you described is exactly what happens already.

Please see ATF Form 4473.

I was under the impression the ATF could not require gun shops to provide inventory accounting and many states still allow cash only no waiting period sales.