Opinion Why gun control is...well...stupid

[King Ad Rock]

Lets say it's successful.  A lot of people "reload" their bullet, or make their own bullets.  How do you prevent this?  This would work for stock bullets, but not for people who make their own bullets.  People do this because it's cheaper to make your own bullets than to buy them.


Point: How do you regulate this?

But what you just described... can already happen. Why should we stop microstamping because of that? It will still help catch criminals who commit crimes with their own legally obtained firearms and stock ammo which happens all the time. It would also replace bullet-casing analysis which is pretty damn flawed.

And you can't regulate everything. You can only make things more safer. You're right, people can still make their own bullets, but that also doesn't mean there aren't dumbasses all over the country who will legally obtain bullets and firearms from manufacturers and then commit crimes/murders with them. This will help catch them. It will also help anyone who could have possibly been wrongfully convicted of a shooting by faulty bullet casing analysis.

 

 

[TeaMMatE11]

But what you just described... can already happen. Why should we stop microstamping because of that? It will still help catch criminals who commit crimes with their own legally obtained firearms and stock ammo which happens all the time. It would also replace bullet-casing analysis which is pretty damn flawed.

And you can't regulate everything. You can only make things more safer. You're right, people can still make their own bullets, but that also doesn't mean there aren't dumbasses all over the country who will legally obtain bullets and firearms from manufacturers and then commit crimes/murders with them. This will help catch them. It will also help anyone who could have possibly been wrongfully convicted of a shooting by faulty bullet casing analysis.

 

I'd like to throw this article as an counterargument:


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/01/bruce-w-krafft/just-how-practical-is-microstamping/

 

[King Ad Rock]

I'd like to throw this article as an counterargument:


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/01/bruce-w-krafft/just-how-practical-is-microstamping/

Biased source is biased. Also outdated information:

"Let’s break that statement down, shall we? Starting with: Microstamping is a proven technology. That is certainly not true. Two studies of microstamping were performed by UC Davis; one in 2006 and another in 2008. The 2006 study concluded:
 


At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required.


The 2008 study was slightly more optimistic, saying that it was feasible but variable. Of more interest, though was the following:



'Tests … showed a wide range of results depending on the weapon, the ammunition used and the type of code examined, Beddow found. Generally, the letter/number codes on the face of the firing pin and the gear codes transferred well to cartridge cases …


The researchers did not have access to patented information allowing them to read the bar- or gear-codes, and so could not determine if these remained legible enough to be useful.'"








They cite two studies done by the same campus, with the latter one literally saying in their own quote : Oh it seems to work. They're just not letting us test all of the technology yet. Since about 2010 this has been considered viable use of identifying casings to guns


Their only argument against it? The numbers can be scratched off?

Um, so? You can also scratch off serial numbers of guns, should we stop putting those on too? I never understood the argument that just because there is a way around something, we shouldn't enforce it? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[bloodLove]

So should we make murder legal because criminals will do it anyway?

 

[Swindle]

I've heard of some places actually decriminalizing things and getting long-term benefits from it, so uh...

 

[bloodLove]

I've heard of some places actually decriminalizing things and getting long-term benefits from it, so uh...

That works with very few thing, murder and guns aren't those things. I don't want guns to be banned, I'm just saying it was a bad argument.

 

[jinkx]

Taken from the BBC website:


All shootings: Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.


Source: Gun Violence Archive


How the US compares: The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.


Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.

 

[Shireling]

There's a litmus test for gun control. It is as follows: 


1. Can a responsible and mentally sober citizen purchase a firearm in a reasonable amount of time? As is his constitutional right. 


2. Can a bullet fired from said gun be traced with a fair amount of accuracy, and can the gun itself be catalogued to the owner. 


3. Does the system currently prevent mentally unfit persons or persons with criminal records for violent offenses from obtaining a firearm? 


As for what weapons should be permitted, I firmly believe that American citizens should be allowed to own every thing short of an actual machine gun or rocket launcher. The purpose of the Second Ammendment is to make sure that the citizens maintain the means to at the very least attempt to overthrow a tyrannical government. Well-regulated militia =/= National Guard. The Natguard is funded and commanded by the state governments, thus making it an extension of the State and in a scenario in which the State is tyrannical, an extension of the State's authority. The feasibility of citizens armed with AR-15's and Glocks overthrowing the government which is armed with tanks and drones is irrelevant, the citizens must retain the ability to stage an uprising. And that's just constitutional. 

 

[D i d o]

Ah ze American Dream...


To shoot or not to shoot, zat is de question.


What harm does it do though, to take away these shooting utensils? I mean, sure you have to give up the hobby of shooting, but there's reading, horse-riding, knitting... Lots of other great stuff to replace it with. Why not humor the full ban as an experiment? You know, give it a go? If it doesn't work then the country can revert the ban citing a lack of results. Win Win. And you never know, you might really like knitting.

 

[Shireling]

Ah ze American Dream...


To shoot or not to shoot, zat is de question.


What harm does it do though, to take away these shooting utensils? I mean, sure you have to give up the hobby of shooting, but there's reading, horse-riding, knitting... Lots of other great stuff to replace it with. Why not humor the full ban as an experiment? You know, give it a go? If it doesn't work then the country can revert the ban citing a lack of results. Win Win. And you never know, you might really like knitting.

That's just not how it works. You see, when America was founded they wrote up this thing called the Articles of Confederation. When the Articles didn't work, they then wrote the Constitution. The Constitution is the end-all, be-all of American law. For all intents and purposes, the Constitution is the US's legal bible. In the Constitution, it says this: 


"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."


Let's be honest, this was a lot simpler in the time of the Revolution. Back in the 1700's, a "well-regulated militia" was a body of people from a given community who organized as a military unit and used personal firearms (or other tools) as weapons. Militias played a huge part in the first few American wars, fighting on both the Colonial and British sides. Nowadays, however, people do not organize into militias because they, by and large, are not worried about being invaded by another country or raided and scalped by Indians. "...being necessary to the security of a free State," this refers back to the Militias. So, the Founding Fathers are saying that in order to maintain a political and social state which we call "freedom" or "liberty," we need a well-regulated militia. Makes enough sense, right? Moving on. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So this refers back to the rest of the sentence. The implication is that in order to ensure the security of a free state you need a well-regulated militia. What does a well-regulated militia need? Arms! Notice, "arms" is capitalized. What that means is that they are not necessarily referring to the weapons themselves BUT RATHER to the military force that such weapons give. So the last part could be read as: "the right of the people to have weapons that give them substantial military force shall not be infringed." In Washington or Jefferson's day, this was a simple argument to make.


Nowadays it's a bit more complicated. Firstly, we don't have militias anymore. Secondly, no I do not believe people should be able to buy rocket launchers. There comes a point in time in which you must weigh the ability of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government BY VIOLENT FORCE IF NECESSARY against the relative harm to the population as a whole. Thus, we have gun control measures. But an outright gun ban would see that the citizenry of the United States would then wholly be at the mercy of politicians with questionable loyalties. You know how the Founding Fathers were all about checks and balances? Here's another one. The power of the people to check the power of the government, because MONOPOLY ON FORCE IS BAD. 


Does this make sense? And don't come at me with the "don't base your life off an old piece of paper" argument, I don't see the UK ripping up the Magna Carta anytime soon. 

 

[TeaMMatE11]

Ah ze American Dream...


To shoot or not to shoot, zat is de question.


What harm does it do though, to take away these shooting utensils? I mean, sure you have to give up the hobby of shooting, but there's reading, horse-riding, knitting... Lots of other great stuff to replace it with. Why not humor the full ban as an experiment? You know, give it a go? If it doesn't work then the country can revert the ban citing a lack of results. Win Win. And you never know, you might really like knitting.

The Constitution also has a "supremacy clause" in which it states that the Federal government is the most powerful government (over state governments).  


The US' Constitution is different than the other countries - if the Federal government infringes on our rights, they are breaking the Constitution, which. we hold as our holy grail.  The Constitution can be questioned, and that's how amendments are made.  The Bill of Rights, however, is unquestionable.  The Bill of Rights were set in place by the Founding Fathers to prevent the government from getting too big, and prevents them from being abusive.

 

[Killigrew]

Usually I wouldn't put my two cents in a thread like this because I often sense that my political views make people think the less of me. Probably because I deserve it, haha. I know that's irrelevant, but hopefully you who are reading this will have mercy on me.


I've only browsed the pages, so forgive me if I'm reiterating tired topics.


Now, in this case as with many others, the subject of argument is predicated on a fundamental understanding. So I'll begin by expressing what I believe to be the right way to view the role of government.


The government's primary purpose is to protect human life and property. In America, the process by which this occurs is an agreement between the people and their leaders, an agreement found in the Documents of the Founding Fathers, which limit the government and define its powers. Why we limit the government is no mystery; a nation birthed in rejection of a tyrannical authority would certainly take care to prevent tyranny's second rise. 


So the question of the Second Amendment's continued validity is really a deeper question than "Will banning guns limit the extent of harm to the people of this nation?" Whether the answer to this question is true or not is not sufficient impetus to abolish the second amendment.


I mean, I don't know how other nations manage it, but our King is those pieces of paper. If those pieces of paper are contradicted, then it sets a precedent; the law is under the people that rule over us rather than the people that rule over us being under the law.

• 
  Slavery Amendment
  
  
  If you would like to bring up the Thirteenth Amendment, I'll preemptively say that it did not contradict any part of the Documents of the Founding Fathers. If anything, they set a strong precedent to abolish slavery. See the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, African Slave Trade 1807, and the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
  

That being said, I understand the fear some may hold of our fellow man. A pistol in the hands of a lunatic, a machine gun in the hands of an extremist, a bomb in the hands of a mass murderer are immediate threats to large amounts of people. Yet preventing them is secondary, I believe, to the authority of our Constitution. 


That is the root of my argument, and without that being directly reasoned against, I am not likely to be convinced. 


Now for a historical argument. 


In the Medieval Era, swords were not to be worn by any but knights for the general security of the populace. While the people felt secure in their cities as a result, the Knights were able to exert a tyranny which many of us now look back on with queasy stomachs. 


This is, I think, the crux of the difficulty. If you take away guns from the people, sure, they may live more peaceably. Murder rates may indeed significantly drop -- I don't know the future, it may be possible -- but only one institution will then have guns. Only one institution will have the power to defend people. I don't think that situation is worth the comfort of peace.


I say this in my home in reach of a computer feeling quite comfortable in a peaceful environment.

 

[Swindle]

Usually I wouldn't put my two cents in a thread like this because I often sense that my political views make people think the less of me. Probably because I deserve it, haha. I know that's irrelevant, but hopefully you who are reading this will have mercy on me.


I've only browsed the pages, so forgive me if I'm reiterating tired topics.


Now, in this case as with many others, the subject of argument is predicated on a fundamental understanding. So I'll begin by expressing what I believe to be the right way to view the role of government.


The government's primary purpose is to protect human life and property. In America, the process by which this occurs is an agreement between the people and their leaders, an agreement found in the Documents of the Founding Fathers, which limit the government and define its powers. Why we limit the government is no mystery; a nation birthed in rejection of a tyrannical authority would certainly take care to prevent tyranny's second rise. 


So the question of the Second Amendment's continued validity is really a deeper question than "Will banning guns limit the extent of harm to the people of this nation?" Whether the answer to this question is true or not is not sufficient impetus to abolish the second amendment.


I mean, I don't know how other nations manage it, but our King is those pieces of paper. If those pieces of paper are contradicted, then it sets a precedent; the law is under the people that rule over us rather than the people that rule over us being under the law.

• 
  Slavery Amendment
  
  
  If you would like to bring up the Thirteenth Amendment, I'll preemptively say that it did not contradict any part of the Documents of the Founding Fathers. If anything, they set a strong precedent to abolish slavery. See the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, African Slave Trade 1807, and the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
  

That being said, I understand the fear some may hold of our fellow man. A pistol in the hands of a lunatic, a machine gun in the hands of an extremist, a bomb in the hands of a mass murderer are immediate threats to large amounts of people. Yet preventing them is secondary, I believe, to the authority of our Constitution. 


That is the root of my argument, and without that being directly reasoned against, I am not likely to be convinced. 


Now for a historical argument. 


In the Medieval Era, swords were not to be worn by any but knights for the general security of the populace. While the people felt secure in their cities as a result, the Knights were able to exert a tyranny which many of us now look back on with queasy stomachs. 


This is, I think, the crux of the difficulty. If you take away guns from the people, sure, they may live more peaceably. Murder rates may indeed significantly drop -- I don't know the future, it may be possible -- but only one institution will then have guns. Only one institution will have the power to defend people. I don't think that situation is worth the comfort of peace.


I say this in my home in reach of a computer feeling quite comfortable in a peaceful environment.

Technically the thirteen colonies revolted for less endearing reasons like the fact that Britain didn't want them to keep stealing the land of the Native Americans and because the slave owners wanted to avoid the abolition of slavery, an issue that would come up again anyway in the 1860s. They also just didn't want to pay taxes in general, seeing as how they had one of the lowest tax rates in the British Empire; even less so than it was in Britain. 

I think I've mentioned something similar before, but the soldiers - the people who would be exacting such oppression if it ever happened - have families and homes. With the exception of a deluded (hopefully a minority) group of people in the military, I can imagine most people would not be okay with jailing and oppressing people who are their neighbors. They are not noble knights who have no care for the common people other than as tools - it could be their husbands/wives and children at stake. 

However, that's still not the point. To my knowledge gun control in the context of the US government is hardly capable of being related to the gun bans in the UK and Australia, so no one has any reason to worry about that (at least "not yet" I guess, except people can barely get gun control on the table let alone gun bans). The problem is that gun control/banning just doesn't do anything to solve the real problems that cause people to turn to violence in the first place. And when you include attacks by people from abroad, it's clear that it's a global issue, not just a domestic one. Sadly there's no genuine open discourse on how to solve world poverty and suffering, since none of the powers who are capable of doing anything about it have it in their interest to, well, act. 


Edit: Also, as for the misconception that people will be able to defend themselves against the government if a tyrant came into power, here's an excerpt from a Quora answer I read once: 


"


EDIT: Got a lot of feedback in the comments to the effect that dictators have cause to fear civilians with firearms.  I would suggest that recent history gives the lie to that piece of NRA propaganda.  Contrary to the ubiquitous poster at gun shows showing a photo of Gaddafi or Saddam with a caption to the effect that they disarmed their citizens, the reality is that under Iraqi law, every adult male not under suspicion was allowed to own a firearm at home.  Many opted for AK-47s.  Reservists, members of the militia, and other popular mobilization forces, were actually required by law to maintain an AK at home.  So Iraqis had a pretty high rate of gun ownership, and with firepower (full auto military grade rifles) greatly exceeding that available to US citizens.  Yet, it didn't stop Saddam from riding roughshod over his people.


Ditto Libya's Gaddafi - his citizens had AK-47s and other full auto military firearms in an abundance that would give US gun nuts a premature ejaculation.  Didn't stop Gaddafi from kicking the Libyans around for > 40 years.


Reason being that unrestrained dictators, red in tooth and claw, are a scary prospect to challenge.  Aside from the lack of inhibition in retaliating with overwhelming and unrestrained firepower, there is the simple fact that their security forces won't just come after you if you make trouble and take up arms.  They'll come after your family and everybody you know.  People might be brave if they're only risking their own lives.  But it's difficult to play hero if it means your dad getting executed, your mom getting tortured, your wife snuffed, and your children repeatedly raped in the secret police's dungeons.  


That's how dictators keep people in check.  Not by disarming them, but by imposing such draconian penalties for resistance or even the suspicion of harboring thoughts about resistance, that few would dare, and fewer still would dare help or cover for those who do.


So no, guns aren't that scary to dictators.  They're comfortable in the knowledge that their regime is a whole lot scarier than civilians with firearms."