The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

So you admit the society is the problem. And you admit that guns in hands of this society makes the problem even more bloody. Why do you want to keep it so bloody then? Why is some illusive "right" so important for you? What does it mean this "right", anyway? Could you be more specific what exactly would you loose living in country with strict gun laws (EU for example)? What do you imagine under the term "strick gun laws" in the first place?

To be fair, I think you are missing the point of Dox47's argument.

Taking away a right--which is, by the way far from "illusive" (I think you mean illusory, though you might mean elusive)--is not going to change the nature of the society in which it is exercised.

1. The police would need to get really organized and systematically crack down on all the gangs, which would be getting two birds with one stone, really. After that was done, you'd want to start steadily removing the guns from the population, as plenty of gun crimes are committed with legally-owned and licensed guns.

A crackdown on gangs (and subsequently drugs) would generally be accepted despite the objections of alien invaders and some minorities screaming harassment as long as the police presence stayed low in neighborhoods with few problems, and then subsided after the crackdown. Trying to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens not only would be unpopular with the police unions due to the risks, but also it would be politically divisive. Many politicians would not take the risk and would be more easily persuaded to put the money saved in law enforcement to enacting non-controversial preventative measures that don't involve guns.

2. This would greatly eliminate the mass killings that constantly occur in the US, as it's a lot harder to commit a mass murder without a gun. Things like arson, chemicals, bombs, etc generally require a lot more in the way of planning and execution, which is fortunate, really. All you need to do with a gun is get it in (usually easy), then whip it out and open fire.

Arson, bombs, chemicals, and other creative items are easy to make! In America, most people don't have to leave their house to do it! If you think getting a gun is easier, you must either be the subject of conservatorship, or every substance that is not considered a food must be restricted like chemical fertilizer! BTW, foods can be a very potent source of potential energy too!

3. Here in NZ, we have government-sponsored ads against things like drunk driving and such on TV. Something like that could help, there's many ways to sway the opinion of the public. Essentially, promote a view that is against the widespread proliferation of guns, without impeding on the rights of hunters and enthusiasts. It's possible, trust me. Nobody here hates hunters or guys who like to go out into the country and pop off some rounds, but we're also perfectly content to have it so that only those guys are running around with the guns. It works great.

It would be debatable which side would have the bigger ad budget! Seriously though, it won't happen. Congress didn't flat out ban such ad campaigns but they banned any taxpayer funded ones.

4. Guns greatly facilitate violent crime. It's much easier to pop a few rounds into someone than it is to knife them. There's a reason why most criminals prefer guns over knives: A solid pistol is flat out better, and more dangerous in almost all circumstances. We've still got quite a lot of violent crime here in NZ, but our homicide rate is low. Basically, while we still have plenty of violent crime, it never tends to result in many deaths, and I think the lack of guns plays a big part of that.

It is proven that guns and violence are not linked, some communities do tend to prefer knives, and once again, there are a lot of underlying factors that influence crime.

In other words, your parliament and law enforcement agencies are too lazy to be judicious in the implementation of a law that solves a problem that never existed to begin with!

The majority of Americans STILL don't want to have the government in our lives nearly to the extent as it is in the less democratic EU. If we want a right to self determination the simplest way to describe the whole bill of rights), we have to sacrifice something- mainly a little safety that something might go wrong for us individually, and whether that uncertainty is a physical threat or financial or something else, we have figure out how to prepare for it. It's not like government bureaucrats are going to lose as much sleep as you will if they follow to deliver for you anyway. I've dealt with social services and I've dealt with private services. Having crappy companies to go to for your needs only seems bad until you deal with the government! When it comes to police protection, we are own anyway ever since a court ruling 31 years ago.

The best part is, right now the white house and defense department are privately pissing themselves over the tea party's growing anger over their recent domestic espionage policies!

I'm gonna start this one out by saluting you for being capable of having a civilized discussion. Good on ya, mate!

That's a real hard part of the solution, would be how, exactly, to get rid of the guns without the citizens crying foul: They're not exactly free, after all. You pay good money for a solid firearm. Offering incentives and rewards for surrendering guns could be an option, and this could be combined with an approach of letting the current guns stay, but minimalizing the further input of guns into the general population.



I wouldn't say "easy", but by all means doable, just look at all the IEDs terrorists get their hands of. However, the actual usage and deployments of such methods are a lot harder. Getting a sizeable bomb into a movie theatre without anyone realizing it would be a damn-impressive feat, I reckon. As for getting guns...I guess this one will really depend on where you live. Getting a hold of a responsibly-tucked away gun would be very hard I bet, but that didn't seem to be the case most of the time, at least not where I lived (Oklahoma and Texas).



I'm sure with enough momentum something could happen, even if it has to be buttressed by private groups. Without the ability of the government to directly play a hand in it, however, that does make things a lot more difficult.



There is no link between violent crime and guns, yes, but there is a tangible link between guns and violent crimes that result in homicide. Check the links I gave earlier. In summary: We maintained a fairly consistent level of violent crime, but it was violent crime that tended to result in far fewer deaths. Surely we can both agree that if violent crime is gonna happen, it's better if nobody dies, right?

If that is your interpretation of my statements then you are subjecting the english language to epistomological stresses which it is ill equipped to handle.

Parliament has prohibited certain classes of firearms and restricted others. In addition, Parliament has permitted the Governor in Council to prescribe certain other firearms or classes of firearms as prohibited or restricted.

There is no question of laziness, rather there is a question of the ability to properly read and interpret the statutes that have been enacted by Parliament.

The question of whether Parliament is solving a problem that does not exist is secondary to the question. Parliament has the jurisdiction to enact whatever legislation it chooses, subject only to the limits of its jurisdiction and the supremacy of the constitution.

I think you're reading too much into what he's asking. I think what he's fundamentally asking for is for an instance in country X that implemented gun control regulation Y such that X is sufficiently like the US that it makes sense to compare them and that after regulation Y was implemented, things got measurably better, but there was no effect Z that could easily be credited with having been the real cause of the change.

I think that if there is a type of gun control regulation that works, that most likely there is such an incident.


Why would this be an upgrade?


He wants an example where a gun control regulation was put into place and violent crime went down while there wasn't another factor that could explain the level of violent crime going down at the same time.


Right actually does mean 'must have'.


One of my favorite short stories is about a guy in a car who picks up a hitchhiker. The hitchhiker pulls out a switchblade and threatens the driver. The driver starts going really fast and talking about how he wants to kill himself, and aims himself towards overpass supports and the like a couple of times, swerving away at the last minute. The hitchhiker can't take it any more and begs to be let out. The driver lets him out, but in the middle of the busy highway, so he is trapped next to the concrete divide in the center. The driver goes a few miles down the road and calls the cops on the hitchhiker. A friend of the driver then asks him how he thought to do that, and he says it was obvious, since a car is a much more dangerous weapon than a knife.

Both alcohol and gasoline are readily available, as are matches and lighters. I don't think arson in general would be hard at all, although if you wanted to kill people with it, it probably would take some planning. I think, in general, that most of the shootings with a lot of victims were planned out. At least that's what it seems like to me from what I've heard.

I'm on the fence when it comes to gun control. On the one hand, while guns have their place within certain sectors of society, the majority of gun nuts strike me as immature brats who think owning assault rifles would make them more macho. They stink of boyish insecurity. Furthermore, I am sick of gun nuts citing the Second Amendment as justification for their right to own any kind of gun. If you actually read the Amendment, it clearly states that citizens have the right to bear arms, as in weapons in general (e.g. bows, swords, nunchaku, etc.), not specifically assault rifles.

On the other hand, while guns definitely make it easier to kill people, addressing the root causes of violence in society would work better in the long term than merely addressing the methods of violence. Gun control could work as a short-term solution to reduce violence, surely it would be better to take away people's reasons for killing each other in the first place.

BrandonSP wrote:

You’d almost have to be a “gun nut” to honestly know that much about them. That, and you misuse the term "assault rifle" but it’s a common error among the unknowing.


It couldn’t have possibly specified assault rifles in the 18th century since there were none. And if you're going to suggest changing the constitution to fit whatever happens to be in vogue at the time then it makes no sense to even have a constitution.

I'm not the law expert here, so there are some things I don't fully understand and want you to clarify on. But the Type 97 didn't meet any criteria whatsoever. It wasn't fully automatic, under the barrel length of 18.5, or anything else like that. The RCMP just simply said it's too easy to convert to fully automatic, and that's how it got banned by name. Last time I checked, the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program has the authority to reclassify firearms through an OIC. How did they manage to do so without one? Do OIC's require approval from Parliament to be set in motion?

No, you don't get it. The problem here is that the RCMP somehow had the authority to reclassify it and then confiscate it from people without compensation. Also, they seized all Type 97's, the grandfathering rule strangely didn't apply.

Parliament did not prohibit the Type 97, the RCMP themselves did. It was initially non-restricted. As for the "definition" of a prohibited firearm, there is some criteria (fully automatic, shorter than barrel length regulations, etc) but guns can also be banned merely by name which is absolutely f*****g ridiculous. The Type 97 is one example of many.

They sent notices through mail to every registered owner of those guns and asked them to turn them in within 30 days or they'd be charged with possession of a prohibited firearm. How would they know who to send these mails to if they didn't use the registry?

They aren't necessarily wrong. But the condescending BS tends to be a good indicator of intellectual dishonesty, arrogance, and self-serving motives. Condescending BS also tends to be vague since they are emotionally motivated, and vagueness is a good sign that you're trying to evade the specifics since specifics don't give you as much room to f**k around. More often than not, I find that it is the case. btw, I wasn't talking about the US, I was talking about the condescension towards pro-gun advocates.

It is my understanding that ILLEGAL firearms are not all that difficult to find. For example, there are plenty of fully automatic AK-47s that have been smuggles into the US and are popular with gangsters, drug dealers, and other thugz.

I favor elimination of concealed carry laws all together. If you can legally buy a pistol, you should be able to carry it concealed without permission from the government.

That's quite a stereotype. I don't know a lot of gun nuts, and I'm not one myself, but the one person I did know who owned several guns was my grandfather, who had about 6 hunting rifles. He was not immature, bratty, macho, boyish, or insecure.

Perhaps more importantly, even if your stereotype was always and invariably true, it would not constitute a good argument for gun control. (Although if it were always true, it would constitute a good argument for not dating gun nuts.)

I'm not sure that those are so much smuggled in as illegally converted, depending upon the model you can add a part called an auto-sear to a semi-automatic firearm to allow it fire in fully automatic mode. Here's an example of an AR-15 auto-sear:

Alternatively, some guns can be made to fire automatically by simply disabling a part called the disconnector, but that's usually not the best approach as you usually have some timing issues with the hammer or striker falling while the gun is out of battery.

There are also "work around" conversion options, such as a solenoid actuated mechanism similar to what is seen on paintball guns:

Or the infamous "shoestring machinegun:


It's all kind of silly though, as fully automatic fire isn't particularly useful off the battlefield, even if all you've got nefarious purposes in mind, as the loss of accuracy more than offsets the increased rate of fire in all but the most highly trained shooters.



That's referred to as Constitutional carry and is the law in Vermont, among other places. Not a lot of violent crime in Vermont.

Because the sale of legal guns is adding to the pool of illegal guns.

I think you need to define what is 'comparable to the US'. What factors do you consider relevant?



Correlation =/= causation


Concrete figures?