This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Titan
Hellodere
Post by
Magician22773
What I want to see, is someone that can come up with a reasonable method of enacting gun control in the US. Stop just saying "we need to do something", and present a plan.
There are currently (2010 statistics) about 200+ million legally owned weapons in the US. There are an estimated 30 million illegal, unregistered, or unaccounted for firearms in the US. It is estimated that at least 1 million firearms cross the Mexican border each year, although its hard to tell how many of these were purchased legally, and could be counted in either of the other 2 categories listed above.
Now, to create a form of gun control that would actually be effective in significantly reducing gun crime, the plan would have to somehow not only be able to control the (now) legal weapons, but would have to
dramatically
address the illegal firearms. The only group of people that (might) actually abide by gun control laws, would be the people that would pose the least amount of threat, the legal, law abiding owners.
You also would have to dramatically address the issue of more illegal firearms entering the country, because just like with drugs, if you cut the legal supply off, the illegal trade will skyrocket. Just a guess here, but I would say that 1 million a year would jump to 10 million or more overnight. Again, this only serves to supply the most nefarious of groups...the criminals.
So lets look at past gun controls, specifically the "Brady Bill" that was passed by Clinton following the Reagan assassination attempt. The Brady Bill is actually one form of "gun control" that I support, as I have no issue with background checks. In fact, I would support longer waiting periods, and less loopholes. (The biggest loophole in the Brady Bill is the "antique and curio" clause, that exempts a firearm more than 50 years old, as many 50+ year old weapons are still very much lethal, and effective guns, especially with modern updates made to them)
The second major issue with this bill was the capacity restriction that limited magazines to 10 rounds or less. However, it only stopped the future manufacture of hi-capacity clips, and allowed millions of "Pre-Ban" magazines to remain in circulation. All this provision did, was drive up the cost of Hi-Cap clips, and did little to curb their use.
I mention the Brady Bill, and its flaws, because any new plan must not have the loopholes that it did. You cannot pass a law that just stops the manufacture of new firearms, as that only serves to hurt the industry, and does noting to stop crime. You cannot just ban assault weapons, as a .22 caliber squirrel hunting rifle is just as deadly. You can't just cut off all new sales of firearms, as there are already hundreds of millions of existing weapons out there. You cant crack down on ammo, as re-loaders will just make their own. Simply making it "more difficult" is not good enough. If you actually want to overturn the 2nd amendment, you damn well better be making it "nearly impossible" to take a life with a firearm.
So there you go. There is my "Why I don;t think gun control is even possible" opinion. Now, lets hear your plan.
Post by
Squishalot
You also would have to dramatically address the issue of more illegal firearms entering the country, because just like with drugs, if you cut the legal supply off, the illegal trade will skyrocket. Just a guess here, but I would say that 1 million a year would jump to 10 million or more overnight. Again, this only serves to supply the most nefarious of groups...the criminals.
Actually, this statement is incorrect, and is equally flawed as the statement "if you allow gay marriage, it's going to reduce the number of straight couples." If you cut the legal supply off, it means that the people who would otherwise buy legal guns are going to create demand for illegal ones. Unless you're suggesting that those people are also criminals, or are somehow going to turn into criminals (as in, other than breaking the law to acquire the guns in the first place, you know what I mean), then you're not supplying the groups of armed robbers and shooters any moreso than you were when all the firearms were legal.
Key message here: laws will not turn law-abiding citizens into mass murderers; however, laws may prevent non-law-abiding citizens from committing mass murder. See the stat posted in the gun control thread on how many massacres in the last 30 years were committed with illegally vs legally obtained weapons.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Interest
There we go. Fixed.
Post by
baradiel
I still can't understand the BMAH...
Not even with the guide, the
Time Left
confuses me.
Post by
Interest
I still can't understand the BMAH...
Not even with the guide, the
Time Left
confuses me.
Highlight it to see the time left (it gives a range). The time left increases each time a bid is made (from what I can tell).
It's pretty frustrating.
Post by
baradiel
I still can't understand the BMAH...
Not even with the guide, the
Time Left
confuses me.
Highlight it to see the time left (it gives a range). The time left increases each time a bid is made (from what I can tell).
It's pretty frustrating.
How it Increases if the BMAH has the Blood-Soaked Invitation for 7,000 and the time left is
Between 2 hrs and 12 hrs
and the BMAH has another Blood-Soaked Invitation for 3,000 and the time left is the same as the one that costs 7,000g?
Post by
Magician22773
You also would have to dramatically address the issue of more illegal firearms entering the country, because just like with drugs, if you cut the legal supply off, the illegal trade will skyrocket. Just a guess here, but I would say that 1 million a year would jump to 10 million or more overnight. Again, this only serves to supply the most nefarious of groups...the criminals.
Actually, this statement is incorrect, and is equally flawed as the statement "if you allow gay marriage, it's going to reduce the number of straight couples." If you cut the legal supply off, it means that the people who would otherwise buy legal guns are going to create demand for illegal ones. Unless you're suggesting that those people are also criminals, or are somehow going to turn into criminals (as in, other than breaking the law to acquire the guns in the first place, you know what I mean), then you're not supplying the groups of armed robbers and shooters any moreso than you were when all the firearms were legal.
Key message here: laws will not turn law-abiding citizens into mass murderers; however, laws may prevent non-law-abiding citizens from committing mass murder. See the stat posted in the gun control thread on how many massacres in the last 30 years were committed with illegally vs legally obtained weapons.
Most of the current illegal guns started out as legal ones, and were stolen, If you cut this supply of, it is reasonable to assume that the demand for smuggled weapons will increase. Your gay marriage analogy makes no sense at all, in the context of this discussion. A better analogy (although maybe not as effective at derailing the point of my thread), is to look at alcohol during, and after, prohibition. When the legal supply of booze was cut off by law, it spawned a massive criminal market for liquor. Now that it is legal, there is only a very small, isolated group of "moonshiners" that still choose to make illegal alcohol.
If you cut off all legal supply of firearms, than you will increase the illegal trade by a) driving a portion of what would have otherwise been legal gun owners to purchase them illegally, but with no nefarious intent to ownership. (i.e. protection against these guys ----->) And b), those that seek to have a weapon for some form of criminal activity. This includes the current group of criminals that already have illegal guns, and other "new" criminals that (who would have otherwise stolen the "legal" guns, that would no longer exist).
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Magician here is an idea:
Your gun cannot leave your property (cars included) aside from specified location ( like shooting yards and hunting grounds), while simultaneously abiding public places to use metal detectors to scan for weaponry. This will allow to keep guns as self-protection or for hunting, while limiting their availability in public spaces.
That's a perfect idea!
I am sure that if that law had been in place, then then the wacko would have not killed all those kids in Connecticut, or the crazy guy would not have killed all the people in Colorado. ./sarcasm
Again, its a fine idea, but it ONLY affects law abiding citizens, and does nothing to stop a crazy person from shooting people.
I would also like to point out that the last 4 major spree killings all occurred in what are usually known as "gun free" zones (places where legal concealed carry is usually not allowed)....a political event, a movie theater, a mall*, and a school.
* It is now just starting to be reported, that a man with a concealed carry weapon, may have actually prevented more deaths at the mall. He confronted the shooter with his weapon, and the shooter next shot was his suicide.
Now, if we apply similar restrictions as to what you mentioned to people with known mental issues, such as restricting THEM from leaving the house without supervision and cause, and using electronic monitoring like what is used to detect a person on house arrest, then at least 2 of the 4 most recent shootings could have been avoided.
Both Jared Laughner (Arizona shooter) and the shooter in Colorado were under the care of a psychiatrist at the time of the shootings. The Oregon mall shooter was not under the care of a doctor, but there were warning signs, his Facebook page had a picture posted that said "Follow Your Dreams", over which was a "stamp" that said "Cancelled". And not enough information is known about the school shooter yet, but from all accounts so far, it appears that it was known that he had "issues".
Post by
Squishalot
Most of the current illegal guns started out as legal ones, and were stolen, If you cut this supply of, it is reasonable to assume that the demand for smuggled weapons will increase. Your gay marriage analogy makes no sense at all, in the context of this discussion. A better analogy (although maybe not as effective at derailing the point of my thread), is to look at alcohol during, and after, prohibition. When the legal supply of booze was cut off by law, it spawned a massive criminal market for liquor. Now that it is legal, there is only a very small, isolated group of "moonshiners" that still choose to make illegal alcohol.
I'm not denying that the demand for smuggled weapons wouldn't increase - in fact, I agree they would increase. What I'm saying is that the number of people both willing to and possessing the means to commit armed criminal offences wouldn't change, because if you owned a legal gun and weren't going to commit a crime, then you're also not going to commit a crime whilst owning an illegal gun.
Anyway, we should probably drop this back into another thread and move it from the RB.
Post by
xlanadenx
Ok, I didn't wanted to say anything before, out of respect for the victims, but................ what is it with America and gun massacres? Columbine, Virginia, Aurora, Conneticut, its like every 4 months some average joe goes "hey bro' know what'd be real cool? if I take this gun and empty it into a crowd".
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? T_T
It's not just America that has gun massacres. It's just that they are sensationalized.
Remember
Norway
? He killed 77 people and injured 242.
Anywho, the real reason I dropped by is to see where Milayu went. You disappeared off my Steam friends list! :(
Post by
Monday
Ohey, it's a Lan. Hi Lan!
Post by
Interest
This made me lol extremely hard.
I still can't understand the BMAH...
Not even with the guide, the
Time Left
confuses me.
Highlight it to see the time left (it gives a range). The time left increases each time a bid is made (from what I can tell).
It's pretty frustrating.
How it Increases if the BMAH has the Blood-Soaked Invitation for 7,000 and the time left is
Between 2 hrs and 12 hrs
and the BMAH has another Blood-Soaked Invitation for 3,000 and the time left is the same as the one that costs 7,000g?The time range is...pretty long. That wouldn't surprise me.
Post by
392412
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Haxzor
Ah, learning korean is actually fun. Who would've though. My handwriting isn't better in hangul than it is english though...
Learn Korean easy gg
Post by
Squishalot
Ah, learning korean is actually fun. Who would've though. My handwriting isn't better in hangul than it is english though...
Learn Korean easy gg
That is full of awesome.
Post by
Interest
Ah, learning korean is actually fun. Who would've though. My handwriting isn't better in hangul than it is english though...
Learn Korean easy gg
I find it amusing that that is actually accurate....
Post by
xlanadenx
Ohey, it's a Lan. Hi Lan!
Hi! :D
Sorry, Lan. I removed... pretty much everyone from steam, aside from one guy that also hasn't been around wowhead lately.
D:
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.