Views on the death penalty and gun control

Post Reply New Topic

The problem is that the gun control lobby is pushing for stupid gun control laws. They define an "assault weapon" based on the appearance of a gun, not its function. And anyone who knows anything about guns knows that a magazine size restriction has a neglible impact on the ability for someone to get lots of rounds downrange. And to think that a criminal will obey any of these laws anyway is equally stupid.

I'm personally against any form of gun control, but I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the gun control advocates if their ideas were limited to things like "ensure the purchaser is not a felon". But gun control advocates don't typically know anything about what they are trying to ban. Michael Bloomberg, the champion of gun control, doesn't even know the difference between semi-automatic and select fire.

Well, at the very least, I'd expect the advocates of "gun control" to know what the hell they are on about.

Typically, though, the more ignorant someone is about guns and the more hysterical they are about banning them, the more the stupid public seem to cheer them on.

I'm not sure how to describe myself on the "gun" question.

I am perfectly content to see a broad level of firearms ownership and use. In that sense, I fit Walrus' definition of "pro-gun". But I am also in favour of regulation and control of firearms possession through mechanisms such as licensing. I am sure some would label me "anti-gun."

Experience in Australia and in Scotland strongly suggests that government regulation can have a positive impact on firearms violence--but I readily admit that these are political cultures in which firearms have not been fetishized as they have been in the United States. So what worked there, and might work in Canada is a far cry from what might work in the US.

Ultimately, I hold the view that current proposals for regulatory change in the United States are window dressing, but they will not effect fundamental change without a cultural shift that desexualises the gunslinger and defetishises the firearm. So long as firearms are sexy, regulation is likely to fail.

Adb wrote:

Magazine bans will have no effect but to drive up prices. People have been stocking up on them since Clinton’s beloved “assault weapon ban” sunsetted in 2004. There was a helluva lot more gun, magazine, and ammo hording in 2009 when Obama too office, and more now after Sandy Hook. There are people standing in line at gun shops. I know because I've seen it right here where I live which is a fairly cosmopolitan area.
Any politician who votes for any kind ban that actually passes will have an albatross hanging from around his/her neck for what’s left of their career.


Adb wrote:

Tequila wrote:

The fact that the antis are anti doesn't say much in favor of their wisdom or knowledge. Not just their lack of common sense but ignorance of current law and its effect, human nature, and gun terminology and technical details and facts.

BTW Adb : The "ensure the purchaser is not a felon" law has been law for a long time.
When you make a purchase the buyer states that on the form 4473. To lie on that form is perjury, a felony in itself. In addition to that there is a real-time NICS check done at the time of purchase.
I think NICS was made law in 1993 or 94 and the 4473 is probably a product of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA-68).


Visagrunt wrote:

Answer: Anti

We already have control and licensing which are already an unproductive infringement. More of both will only anger people and, of course, do nothing to curb crime………..says the boy who lied about the German pirates.

Just because the AWB defined assault weapons based largely on cosmetic features doesn't mean that gun control advocates today are.

The most anti-gun person I know served in the army in Bosnia and Afghanistan, he wants semi-automatic rifles totally banned and magazine numbers restricted. I'm not convinced that the time taken to reload in such a mass shooting situation is going to make much difference.

The Walrus wrote:

Have you even taken into account just for a second that there are already millions of hi-capacity magazines in circulation?
How 'bout that murder itself is already illegal?

This is what I don't understand about the push to make guns illegal. How is that to be enforced, when there are so many already? I know there have been buy-back programs, but those are voluntary, and only someone to whom extra money this month is more important than their firearms is going to do that. And who pays for that? If someone has spent a lot on firearms - their choice - why do my tax dollars have to be used to pay them back for them? I can see all sorts of waste in this issue that have nothing to do with preventing crime. A great uncle of mine used to have a bumper sticker that said, "If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have them." I think that's true.

Also, after seeing what happened with the Occupy movement recently, the police brutality and then learning that it may have been orchestrated at a federal level, having the police be the only ones with firearms seems problematic to me. Don't get me wrong, I respect the idea of police and have known personally police officers who were not that way (and by the way who owned guns of their own and were for ownership). But that is the whole reason it's in the constitution to begin with, it was the idea that people needed to be able to rebel against a tyrannical government.

By the way, I'm a liberal, and I don't like guns personally. But I think the recent shootings have everyone too emotional, angry and mostly fearful about this issue, and that's when tyrants can take advantage, when everyone is afraid.

It's time for everyone to take a step back, cool off, and rethink this, IMO.

I don't see any benefits to relaxing gun control in the UK (if that make me 'anti-gun') and I think the death penalty is ineffective at cutting crime and saving money, so I don't agree with it.

They are. Take a look at Feinstein's new bill.


Are you sure he's not talking about fully automatic (select fire) rifles?

I can speed reload my pistol in under 1.5 seconds. On my AR-15, I can speed reload in under 4 seconds. I'm not even a competition shooter. Magazine size restrictions are idiotic.

Can you demonstrate that existing controls and licensing are an unproductive infringement? All you can demonstrate is that existing regulation has not eradicated firearms violence--but you cannot demonstrate that things would not be worse in the absence of those regulations. Neither can you demonstrate that further regulation will necessarily fail to curb crime. These make very good pronouncements ex cathedra but you would do well to support your argument with some reasoning.

For the record, I agree with you on the latter point (the inutility of further regulation)--further regulation in the United States is useless unless they are accompanied by a cultural shift. But just because I agree with you does not mean that I will give you a pass on unsupported declarations.

Yes. He started off by saying "ban assault rifles", I said that assault weapons had only been defined as semi-automatic guns with X cosmetic features and one or two non-cosmetic features. He said "then just ban all automatic and semi-automatic rifles" (not exactly, but that was the point he made). I don't think he objected to semi-automatic shotguns, he just talked about the immense amount of destruction that can be done in a short period of time by such weapons and that a non-automatic gun would be more than appropriate for most cases of self defence and hunting. I was unable to challenge him on what is adequate for self defence because I only had what WP users say, no knowledge of my own.

You might want to question him on that. A ban on semi-automatic weapons is very close to a full gun ban. It would leave bolt-action rifles, revolvers (questionable though since the weapon still cycles automatically), pump/lever shotguns, and muskets.

I don't believe other people should tell you what is adequate for your self defense. If you are defending yourself from a violent attacker, you shouldn't be thinking in terms of using the minimum force necessary. You should use whatever is going to stop the attacker in the shortest amount of time.

I think death by "firing squad" is the most barbaric method of capital punishment that's still used in the United States. Anybody agree? A few states have it as an option I think.

It would take a really sick f**k to choose guns as their execution method.

Last time I checked, death by firing squad it is considered the most honourable way to be executed as a soldier. My assessment is that it is also very effective. 5-6 men simultaneously firing rifle calibre rounds at the torso of a stationary person at close range will likely kill that person very swiftly. For head shots, even more so.

And furthermore, isn't the firing squad option in the US something which can only be administered by request from the *inmates*?

Only like 2 or 3 states have any method other than lethal injection and it is a secondary option.

Being put down like dog by lethal injection is no better, the clinical setting is for the peace of mind of the executioner and the witnesses not the condemned. Those put to the death by lethal injection die a slow and suffocating death, in my opinion it's even worse than firing squad or hanging since it masks what they are truly doing.

Without looking, I think either Utah or Idaho still use the firing squad as a secondary method, and several states that used the electric chair still retain it as an alternative.