The Argument for Guns

[EatLeadCommie]

Because when we all finally get sick of 8 years of Obama followed by 8 years of Hillary, we're gonna need something to fight with.

 

[BarcaDeac]

Ok

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Mandatory background checks and waiting periods along with a National Gun registry.
Stricter limits on the # of guns and amount of Ammo you can own.
Strict liability for gun owners for crimes committed with guns that they own (unless reported stolen w/in 24 hours of discovery of the theft).

Those are just a start, would have a noticeable impact on gun violence, and would impose little to no burden on the large majority of gun owners.

Ugh. Background checks I'm all for. Make them instant. They already are, and there is no excuse for them not to be. As far as getting mental health flags and shit into the system, that is not really a partisan issue in the gun debate. It's an individual privacy issue that has to be fought in the courts. I'm all for it, but it's not as simple as passing a law and having it done.

Waiting periods make no sense and never have. The assumption there is that somebody buying a gun needs to "cool off". What kind of horseshit is that? How many people go buy a gun to kill somebody versus the girl who needs one immediately because she has a crazy motherfucker stalking her. The whole waiting period argument is simply insulting.

National gun registry is a non-starter. No way, no how. You want to do it at the state level, then fine, but I won't be living in that state if I can help it.

I don't see a reason for limiting gun and ammo ownership either. Because some mass shooter has a couple guns? It's nobody's goddamn business how many guns a person owns. If you implement limits on gun ownership at, say, 5 guns, that means a record of it is somewhere, most likely the ATF. So now the ATF knows that you own guns and 5 of them. Seems like a good reason to be needlessly targeted by a bloated government agency with nothing else to do.

Liability is a state issue. As a mechanism to reduce gun violence, I don't see how it affects anything. Say my gun gets stolen. Whether I notice it immediately or after some fucker uses it in a crime really doesn't matter. And how liable should I really be when the weapon is stolen? That means somebody came into my house, violated the sanctity of my sanctuary, and fucking took something I own. I'm the criminal because somebody else committed a criminal act? The only way that reporting theft would help is if it stops it from being pawned. You catch the guy who stole it and tried to pawn it, but he isn't the guy who used it to shoot people. He's the guy who tried to pawn it for money. Maybe he has shot somebody before and maybe he will in the future, but he didn't then.

Again, the whole concept behind most of your ideas is control, but control in this case doesn't appear to have any real law enforcement value. If you had said just ban all gun ownership, then yeah, that would have an effect on gun violence, though I'm not sure what the effect would be on overall violent crime. Frankly, the trade-off there between perceived social security from a full-on gun ban and the restriction on my freedoms to defend myself is not worth it to me.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

By the time Hillary has completed her 2nd term the population demographics in this country will have changed so much that the GOP will have been relegated to virtual 3rd party status....a fringe political party that is only competetive in some rural districts in the south, midwest and prairie states, incapable of winning any national election.

That's right. By then we'll need guns to shoot all the goddamn Messicans running over the border to take advantage of the 4th amnesty plan in 40 years.

 

[Kent]

I'm not a fan of the "outlaw guns and only criminals will have them" argument. Partly because, though I personally wouldn't mind it, most people aren't really talking about getting rid of all guns. Also, if all guns were outlawed, it would make them much more difficult to find, and expensive to buy, on the black market. So the meth addict you're worried about, for example, would find it much more difficult to get his hands on one.

There would be a lot of black market money to be made by selling guns, which means there would be guns to be bought, plus a whole new problem of the distribution system (e.g., another "drug war" we can't win). Plus, I'm not worried so much about whether the meth addict has a gun- I just want to make darn sure I have one so I don't have to otherwise engage him (knife, baseball bat, etc.). There's also the insurmountable issue of getting rid of the millions and millions of guns already out there somewhere.

FWIW, my plan would be to ban assault weapons (machine guns and whatnot), do background checks on all gun purchases, make possession of an illegal gun a meaningful offense, and try to come up with a better way to track nut jobs who shouldn't have guns of any type. There's no easy solution, but there are certainly things that could be done.

 

[avalon]

There would be a lot of black market money to be made by selling guns, which means there would be guns to be bought, plus a whole new problem of the distribution system (e.g., another "drug war" we can't win). Plus, I'm not worried so much about whether the meth addict has a gun- I just want to make darn sure I have one so I don't have to otherwise engage him (knife, baseball bat, etc.). There's also the insurmountable issue of getting rid of the millions and millions of guns already out there somewhere.

There already is black market money to be made by selling guns. If all were illegal, the risk would skyrocket, along with the prices. Using drugs can be hidden from the cops pretty easily, using a gun is much harder.

 

[dmcheatw]

By the time Hillary has completed her 2nd term the population demographics in this country will have changed so much that the GOP will have been relegated to virtual 3rd party status....a fringe political party that is only competetive in some rural districts in the south, midwest and prairie states, incapable of winning any national election.

bob don't underestimate what the 'pubs are willing to do to retain relevancy, as we've seen here in NC. gerrymandering, damaging/sabotaging public education, cutting social security policies during a time of 10-15% unemployment nationally, and throwing up roadblocks to student voting. kinda like they did with busing back in the day. hope you're right but it's human nature to do whatever is necessary to stay atop the food chain. too bad we don't (yet) live in a different world.

 

[dmcheatw]

There would be a lot of black market money to be made by selling guns, which means there would be guns to be bought, plus a whole new problem of the distribution system (e.g., another "drug war" we can't win).

no it isn't at all the same (for now).

you don't need a factory and several mined natural resources (like lead) or manufactured products (smokeless powder or brass) to make and process a plant. but we would need to deal with the war on drugs--meaning end it--in order to successfully control the flow of firearms into the country; controlling domestic manufacturing would be easy. conservatives should be able to get on board b/c this will also reduce illegal immigration. so like the war against Quaalude was actually one of the few successes of the war on drugs, b/c you need a factory and substantial supporting resources to make it.

whether that would still be possible in a more globalized economy idk.

anyway, that, coupled with a robust, no questions asked, firearm buyback policy, which would in some cases mean offering to buy back a firearm at well above the legitimate market rate, would be successful over time with current technology.

3d printing and materials science could change this equation in as little as a decade, but for now i can't agree with your post.

 

[WFU Lurker]

Remember that the Republicans used to be the progressive party of the two. Point is that they will evolve in order to stay relevant. These are politicians we're talking about after all: they have no backbone.

I sure do hope the choices improve. Neither is very compelling these days.

 

[WFU Lurker]

Yep. The sole purpose of a handgun is to harm another human. Spare me the BS of shooting them at the range or whatever. I'm ok with law enforcement and military use, though. But ordinary citizens don't need them.

Doesn't this line of thinking just make you a little uncomfortable? I mean it's logically sound and, truthfully, at this point if there's any kind of military or even police lead type coup us commoners don't have a chance, but the whole "not for civilians" thing just rubs me the wrong way. I don't know why.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Waiting periods make no sense and never have. The assumption there is that somebody buying a gun needs to "cool off". What kind of horseshit is that? How many people go buy a gun to kill somebody versus the girl who needs one immediately because she has a crazy motherfucker stalking her. The whole waiting period argument is simply insulting.

Waiting periods make no sense and never have. The assumption is that a woman getting an abortion needs to be forced to think twice about it. What kind of horseshit is that? How many woman get an abortion casually, vs somebody who needs one immediately because she knows she's not ready to be a mother. The whole waiting period argument is simply insulting.

 

[dmcheatw]

Remember that the Republicans used to be the progressive party of the two. Point is that they will evolve in order to stay relevant. These are politicians we're talking about after all: they have no backbone.

I sure do hope the choices improve. Neither is very compelling these days.

that's true but it's more like the parties switched names than politicians and constituents woke up one day and all the sudden had a new philosophy.

 

[WFU Lurker]

that's true but it's more like the parties switched names than politicians and constituents woke up one day and all the sudden had a new philosophy.

It's an evolutionary process. We've already started to see it begin to unfold w/ gay marriage.

 

[WFU Lurker]

This ain't your daddy's GOP. These Republicans today do not believe in compromise. A majority of Republicans still believe that they lost the last two presidential elections because they didn't nominate "true conservatives". The only thing that has changed about the Republican Party in the last 20 years is that it has gotten a lot worse....and further & further out of touch with reality. It has become a very mean-spirited & spiteful political party that is totally negative in its outlook and has become completely uninterested in solving the nation's problems. On the contrary, since President Obama has been in office, the singular goal of the GOP has been to do everything in its power to prevent the government from working for the benefit of its citizens. The ACA is a prime example. What Republicans are really afraid of with the ACA is not that it will fail....but that it will work....and that the GOP will once again be on the wrong side of history....as it was with Social Security, Medicare & Marriage Equality.

Not quite right there Bobby. They are working against ACA because they don't think it's to the benefit of its citizens. And, a sizeable portion of the population seems to agree with them. The Republicans aren't nefarious or evil. They just want to get elected, with most of them having noble intentions to make the world a better place. Just like Barrack Obama did in 2008 when he took a stand against gay marriage.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Waiting periods make no sense and never have. The assumption is that a woman getting an abortion needs to be forced to think twice about it. What kind of horseshit is that? How many woman get an abortion casually, vs somebody who needs one immediately because she knows she's not ready to be a mother. The whole waiting period argument is simply insulting.

I guess you think you caught me in some kind of hypocrite trap, but I don't disagree with you. My problem with abortion is not that it exists, but that SCOTUS turned it into a Constitutional right. I suspect that women getting abortions thought about it plenty between the time they figured out they were pregnant and the time they walked through the gauntlet of protesters at the clinic.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I guess you think you caught me in some kind of hypocrite trap, but I don't disagree with you. My problem with abortion is not that it exists, but that SCOTUS turned it into a Constitutional right. I suspect that women getting abortions thought about it plenty between the time they figured out they were pregnant and the time they walked through the gauntlet of protesters at the clinic.

Sorry, I wasn't intending to put those words in your mouth, that's why I didn't do the whole "fify" thing, I just thought the parallel was interesting.

 

[BarcaDeac]

Doesn't this line of thinking just make you a little uncomfortable? I mean it's logically sound and, truthfully, at this point if there's any kind of military or even police lead type coup us commoners don't have a chance, but the whole "not for civilians" thing just rubs me the wrong way. I don't know why.

I just don't see the practical need. Here in DC there are still plenty of crimes with guns and I'd wager most involve handguns. You make them illegal and they are much tougher to get. Yes they are technically illegal already in the District but it sure as shit is easy to cross the river to VA where they are legal.

 

[Deacon923]

Case for guns:
1. Hunting/livestock defense. This is a perfectly legitimate reason for someone to own and use certain types of guns, mainly rifles and shotguns. Still plenty of hunters and sheep farmers in more civilized countries with sensible firearms laws.
2. Defense against criminals. This is also a legitimate reason for someone to own and use certain types of guns, especially people who live in remote or crime-prone areas, or are engaged in occupations with a high risk of encountering criminals.

I don't feel that either of these arguments are sufficient to make a case that ANY PERSON can own ANY GUN for ANY REASON at ANY TIME and in ANY PLACE. In other words, I support gun rights, but I am not a gun rights absolutist.


Clearly a rational society weighs the potential harm to society from easy availability of guns vs. the potential harm to individuals from being unable to own/carry whatever gun they want, whenever and wherever they want to. That weighing can happen in a number of ways; you can outlaw certain types of guns; you can prohibit certain categories of people from owning guns (which presumes all others can own them); you can set thresholds for gun ownership (which presume all others cannot own them); you can put in place a system whereby gun owners compensate the rest of society for the risks created by their gun ownership; or a combination of these. I have advocated on the long gun violence thread for a mandatory insurance scheme.

ETA: I don't think "protection from the gummint" is a legitimate reason for gun ownership. If you want to live in a society where shooting at government officials is an acceptable expression of your freedoms, move to Somalia. There are plenty of democratic countries with robust individual freedoms where hardly anyone has a gun. The idea that democracy requires everyone to be armed is just silly.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

pretty dumb thing to say about WFU students, but entirely unsurprising given the source.

 

[BarcaDeac]

Gun nuts just make me nervous. What's a gun nut you ask? It's the type of person who feels it necessary to come to Chipotle like this

just because the Constitution permits them to. Why the fuck is that necessary? You're just intimidating/scaring a lot of people.