{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Ric_Adbur:
1/17/2013 5:20:02 AM
20
Gun Control
Jred, Baph, and I discussed this a bit in Steam chat earlier, and we disagreed heavily on what should be done. I don't like debating in chatrooms, because it's difficult to type long arguments at that speed, so I thought I'd make a thread about it.
In the past, I have been of the opinion that gun control is similar to the war on drugs - banning firearms will do nothing but take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing effectively nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining them, and also turning otherwise upstanding citizens into criminals for no good reason.
However, recently I have also been swayed by the argument that certain weapons do not belong in the hands of the public due to their inherent danger. In the wrong hands, certain classes of weaponry are much more dangerous than others. Fully-automatic action weapons, for example. They have the potential to cause much greater harm at a much higher rate, and with much greater efficiency than if a semi-automatic weapon were used in the same context. It is the same reasoning behind why missiles, explosives, bombs, artillery, and other such weaponry is kept out of the hands of private citizens.
Full-auto weapons aren't necessary for personal defense purposes, nor for hunting, and are in fact overkill in both roles. So there are only three reasons for someone to have them; 1 - they are a member of a military or law-enforcement group, 2 - they are an unstable or unethical individual bent on wanton violence, or 3 - they just think it's fun to shoot.
I do not think 'fun' is a sufficient reason to balance out the danger of allowing such weapons to continue to be available to the public.
Thoughts?
-
1 ReplyGrapplingIgnorance video.
-
3 RepliesEdited by Random: 1/18/2013 2:10:47 AMI wonder if anyone is thinking about how, in the most developed nation on earth, simply existing is still considered dangerous enough that a gun is required to keep you safe. I'd like to see the US progress to a nation where 'home defense' is no longer a valid reason to own a weapon rather than forcefully remove weapons (which causes the tinfoil 'muh freedums' lolbertarians to kick up a fuss and generally increases the amount of disinfo and hostility among the public) from the populace. Government intrusion into lives seems to be very disliked (when it's not keeping minorities down), and a very different solution is probably going to be required to reduce gun violence in the US. All that said, I support a ban on concealable firearms.
-
4 RepliesKeep them totally out of civilian hands.
-
18 Replies[quote][quote]I do not think 'fun' is a sufficient reason to balance out the danger of allowing such weapons to continue to be available to the public.[/quote]I do. Or, more specifically, I think the freedom to own automatic weapons is worth the human cost.[/quote]
-
1 ReplyI think focusing on banning "assault weapons" is stupid. I think you're rather privileged if that's the danger you choose to focus on in a western nation. Fact of the matter is high caliber weapons firing jacketed steel core rounds are hardly used in murders in the US, they're just not effective for anything other than a shooting spree where the gunman doesn't mind dying, and this isn't as common as other types of homicides. I think the more effective approach is to study what conditions make certain places have a higher concentration of violence and crime than others, and develop solutions that address violent crime as a whole, not just school shootings.
-
Edited by regimechange: 1/18/2013 1:50:49 AMThe Korean businesses in LA used assault rifles to defend their storefronts in the LA riots. An assault rifle is a lot more intimidating than a handgun. What they did would not have been possible without assault weapons. Also for the whole "They have the potential to cause much greater harm at a much higher rate." While this is true, what is a ban going to do to stop it? One with truly malicious intent would simply go to the black market, as you said in your own post. I say have better background checks and mental evaluations, but don't ban it. Also the Virginia Tech shooter had two HANDGUNS, and he's killed more than any other. If we're banning anything, we have to go all the way and just outlaw guns. Also, the point that they have the massive potential to do bad things is stupid. There are plenty of extremely harmful things that are legal in the US. Take alcohol, for example. Drunk driving is a serious problem, but we haven't tried banning alcohol again.
-
6 RepliesSee general topics like this are exactly what we should be opening up to the mains so they can see what real, reasoned discussion looks like.
-
I'd have to say I agree with Ric. But, assault weapons should be defined by their capabilities, not by how scary they look.
-
5 RepliesI concur. I also seriously think we need to enforce the ratings on our video games better as well. You let little kids grow up playing CoD, Halo and other FPS games all the time and it affects them. Not saying ban them. Keep them out of the hands of smaller kids.
-
2 RepliesEdited by Ninja Guardian: 1/17/2013 8:11:00 AMI'm okay with assault rifles. Assault Weapon is just a stupid term. It just groups every semi-auto rifle with AR-15s and matte black airsoft guns and whatever else the soccer moms whine about. If you ask me, the problem is American culture, the mentally ill are stigmatized as weak which is why they don't always seek treatment and not a lot of people have the time or money for mental therapy. That being said, I'm okay with background checks and I'm okay if assault rifles sold in America can only be fired in semi-auto mode. There's also the war on drugs, that has made illegal gun access easier for the unlawful to gain guns. Also, if somebody REALLY wants guns, they'll get them illegally. Partially because the war on drugs has made it easy. Oh yeah, and all gun owners should be required to take a firearms basic maintenance and safety course. Too many people in this country actually shoot people or themselves on accident and people get injured when their gun malfunctions severely because they don't maintain their guns. Yeah this picture is also relevant. http://imgur.com/oU05W
-
1 ReplyBan automatic weapons: save two lives a year.
-
Unless the possession of a certain weapon is an inherent danger to the welfare of others (and therefore a violation of others' rights), like in the case of owning an atom bomb (me owning an atom bomb would be an inherent danger to anyone living close to me), then I see no reason for said weapon to be prohibited. You gave a good justification for the legalization of more useful guns. I see no difference in principle in the case of more powerful weapons. As I understand, fully-automatic weapons and exactly impossible to obtain illegally. I see no good reason to posses heroin, but clearly it should not be prohibited.
-
Relevant link.
-
10 RepliesEdited by Dr. Phil: 1/17/2013 1:30:07 AMWe recently had a mini simulation about this in MUN. I proposed: [quote] 1- The introduction of a intensive background checks on anyone who tries to obtain a gun license. a. After 5 years, the license should be renewed and background checks redone. 2- Institute a Federal law to ban all Assault Weapons. a. The U.S. government will buy back all assault weapons with no questions asked. b. "Grandfather Clause" Anyone who already owns an assault weapon, will be allowed to keep it but will not be allowed to sell the weapon under penalty of law. 3- Institute a Federal law to ban all High Capacity Magazines. a. The U.S. government will buy back all High Capacity Magazines with no questions asked. b. "Grandfather Clause" Anyone who already owns any High Capacity Magazines, will be allowed to keep it but will not be allowed to sell the weapon under penalty of law. 4- Institute a Federal law to ban all Armor Piercing Rounds. a. The U.S. government will buy back all Armor Piercing Rounds with no questions asked. 5- Increase funding to research the correlation between mental illness and gun violence. 6- Mandate all individuals who want to obtain a gun license to attend a 1 week course on responsible gun use. [/quote] In no way would I even attempt to compare the War on Drugs to gun control. Personally idgaf if anyone thinks this violates the 2nd Amendment. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness outweighs the rights to bare arms.
-
6 RepliesAren't fully automatic weapons already illegal (and rightfully so)?
-
17 RepliesI understand why people want gun control. When a tragedy on the scale of Newton occurs, it's natural to want to respond. Gun control seems simple enough. No guns = no gun violence. But that's not how it works. Criminals don't get their guns legally. Just like Prohibition failed, gun control laws have failed. Look at Chicago. And D.C. Heavy gun control, and some of the worst crime rates in the country. Whatever crime gun control does manage to stop is overridden by the now defenseless law abiding citizen.
-
I think black market arguments are crappy. People breaking that law doesn't justify removing that law. For instance, drunk driving still occurs even though it is illegal but that doesn't mean that we should legalize it. Obviously making something illegal doesn't completely stop it from being used, but it does make it more difficult for people to obtain it. Hell, sometimes even the concept of something being illegal is enough of a deterrent since some people associated with illegality with "wrongness". I also agree that activities or items that generally cause great collateral damage to other humans should be prohibited. For instance, drunk driving causes the deaths of many innocent people but people should have any right to drive drunk even if drunk driving doesn't entail the harm of other humans. Sometimes certain things should be restricted to prevent the unintentional loss of life.
-
6 RepliesEdited by Lies: 1/17/2013 12:59:29 AMFully automatic weapons are already illegal. The current debates focuses on restricting the ease of access to firearms (e.g., criminal background checks, increasing security at gun shows) and restricting some more dangerous items (e.g., extended magazines, assault rifles). Actually I think the current language mentions "assault weapons", which is an aesthetic distinction I think. It's not as precise as "assault rifle", which does have an unambiguous meaning.
-
And on to your point: Missiles, bombs, and such are not 'firearms'. They are not classified as such, nor are they protected under the 2nd Amendment. They are separate entities. Second off, Fully-auto weapons are fairly rare unless you are a collector or some other profession. In fact, I think you have to have special permit just to own one. And the people who own these use them for sport.
-
[quote]I do not think 'fun' is a sufficient reason to balance out the danger of allowing such weapons to continue to be available to the public.[/quote]I do. Or, more specifically, I think the freedom to own automatic weapons is worth the human cost.
