The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Larry]

22 minutes ago, twa said:

 

It is argument for doing effective things rather than DO SOMETHING.

 

 

 

Pretty sure that Peter has pointed out that there are scientific studies demonstrating that some gun control laws do have an effect on gun crimes.  Dozens of times.  Specifically to you.  

 

Curiously, such laws are always successfully opposed by one particular side in this debate.  

[Berggy9598]

3 hours ago, twa said:

 

 No, which likely will result in which?

 

a: them becoming better people

or

b: choosing different weapons and tactics

 

I'm going with B

 

and you need to address how to remove the ones in circulation

I’m going with B as well, and Holmes specifically is extremely intelligent so theoretically he could put together a bomb or something similar. The other two i don’t see succeeding in killing that many people with anything but guns. 

[tshile]

48 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

What do you thin they would use?

 

I think more is extremely unlikely.  People with these issues aren't specific to the US, and through most of the western developed world, you don't see people with these issues getting more deadly weapons in general.

 

Well I would turn to all the terrorist attacks throughout history that were designed to kill lots of people but they didn’t use guns. Seems to me the list includes, but is not limited to:

various explosive devices including entire vehicles turned into bombs (and we’ve seen this with domestic terrorism to, like mcvay)

 

planes (and we had a domestic terrorist fly a plane into a building)

 

knives, cars, blunt objects. 

 

Its been done. A lot. Concluding that mass murders wouldn’t commit mass murder without guns seems silly consider the rather large number of examples we have of them doing it without guns. 

[twa]

13 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

I’m going with B as well, and Holmes specifically is extremely intelligent so theoretically he could put together a bomb or something similar. The other two i don’t see succeeding in killing that many people with anything but guns. 

 

What law that you could get passed would prevent Lanza?

17 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Pretty sure that Peter has pointed out that there are scientific studies demonstrating that some gun control laws do have an effect on gun crimes.  Dozens of times.  Specifically to you.  

 

Curiously, such laws are always successfully opposed by one particular side in this debate.  

 

Studies and Peter say a lot of things, some of them even true.

 

Peter and I agree pretty much on gun control from the discussions I recall.

 

[tshile]

47 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

It is very unlikely you would develop a black market guns outside of the drug market.

 

Unlike drugs, guns are not addictive and guns are much harder to do things like ship (generally they are larger for the profit).

 

I think gun culture is definitely addictive. 

 

And we already have an incredibly large black market for guns. And there’s a large global black market too. 

 

I don’t get where the confidence in your opinions comes from. 

[Springfield]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

What law that you could get passed would prevent Lanza?

 

Just because you can’t prevent all doesn’t mean that you should try to prevent some, or even one.

 

But let’s go down your path.  Lanza was the Sandy Hook shooter.  Went in and shot up a school full of children and teachers.  Say they were all armed, as well as the students.  How many people die?  More or less than 28?

[twa]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

I think gun culture is definitely addictive. 

 

And we already have an incredibly large black market for guns. And there’s a large global black market too. 

 

I don’t get where the confidence in your opinions comes from. 

 

the market would become more profitable, which leads back to what about the guns already here.

 

 

[tshile]

29 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

There is a lot of excellent science behind this.  Having access to a gun has no affect on the likelihood of a suicide attempt.

 

That sounds much more credible than what I thought the claim was. It never sat right with me that people wouldn’t attempt suicide just because they couldn’t get a gun. 

 

I dont have firm opinions on suicide in general. It’s hard to square thinking someone should be able to check out if they want to with the idea that maybe their reason for wanting to check out is because of a mental health crisis that could otherwise be resolved. Doctor assisted suicide for a terminally ill person in uncontrollable pain vs depression for example. 

 

Add to that - I don’t know that it’s a good reason for gun control. I’m not saying it definitely isn’t, just that I’m conflicted on it. 

 

Do we want to curtail a right because depressed people kill themselves with guns? Is there any legitimate gun control item on the table that would actually put a dent in it anyways?

 

I think it’s a complex issue and conversation which is why I think adding it as a bullet point to the gun control situation is intentionally misleading. 

3 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Just because you can’t prevent all doesn’t mean that you should try to prevent some, or even one.

 

But let’s go down your path.  Lanza was the Sandy Hook shooter.  Went in and shot up a school full of children and teachers.  Say they were all armed, as well as the students.  How many people die?  More or less than 28?

Didn’t he kill his mother and take her gun to do that? Wasn’t she completely fine and capable of passing all the background checks?

 

i believe that was the point of the argument you’re responding to. 

 

Not to mention your question is intentionally silly. 

[twa]

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

 

Just because you can’t prevent all doesn’t mean that you should try to prevent some, or even one.

 

But let’s go down your path.  Lanza was the Sandy Hook shooter.  Went in and shot up a school full of children and teachers.  Say they were all armed, as well as the students.  How many people die?  More or less than 28?

 

The teacher or staff having the ability to stop him COULD certainly reduce the number.

as could better security and response.

 

 

[Springfield]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Didn’t he kill his mother and take her gun to do that? Wasn’t she completely fine and capable of passing all the background checks?

 

i believe that was the point of the argument you’re responding to. 

 

Not to mention your question is intentionally silly. 

 

Im a silly goose.  Plus, nothing’s going to change so there isn’t much point in being completely serious 100% of the time.  I’m alive as **** right now.

 

But to make a further point.  A background check should include all those living under your roof imo.  If your son or spouse is a nutso, no guns for your household.

 

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The teacher or staff having the ability to stop him COULD certainly reduce the number.

as could better security and response.

 

 

 

Not having access to a 30 round rifle COULD also reduce the number.  See what I did there?

Edited August 7, 2019 by Springfield

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Im a silly goose.  Plus, nothing’s going to change so there isn’t much point in being completely serious 100% of the time.  I’m alive as **** right now.

Well, you asked a question that can't be answered, that implies that the number of saved matters, when you opened the post with 

"Just because you can’t prevent all doesn’t mean that you should[sic] try to prevent some, or even one."

 

There are lots of good arguments against arming teachers. The one you're attempting to do, which I should add wasn't even part of the discussion, isn't one of them.

 

Silly was about as nice of a word as I could use.

 

 

Quote

But to make a further point.  A background check should include all those living under your roof imo.  If your son or spouse is a nutso, no guns for your household.

 

Yup.

 

Not sure how young children fit into that, but in general I agree.

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by tshile

[bcl05]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

That sounds much more credible than what I thought the claim was. It never sat right with me that people wouldn’t attempt suicide just because they couldn’t get a gun. 

 

I dont have firm opinions on suicide in general. It’s hard to square thinking someone should be able to check out if they want to with the idea that maybe their reason for wanting to check out is because of a mental health crisis that could otherwise be resolved. Doctor assisted suicide for a terminally ill person in uncontrollable pain vs depression for example. 

 

Add to that - I don’t know that it’s a good reason for gun control. I’m not saying it definitely isn’t, just that I’m conflicted on it. 

 

Do we want to curtail a right because depressed people kill themselves with guns? Is there any legitimate gun control item on the table that would actually put a dent in it anyways?

 

 

I would argue that depression is, in the vast majority of cases, very treatable.  Most people who attempt suicide and live go on to recover from their attempts, get treated for their depression, lead productive lives, and are no longer depressed and suicidal (certainly relapses can happen, but can still be treated).  

 

To me, suicide represents a failure and a waste.  It is a failure of our community and our mental health system to recognize and treat patients before they get desperate.  It is a failure in our ability to protect people from themselves.  We would all agree (I think) that people with active psychiatric diseases that make themselves dangerous should not have weapons.  Suicide (in someone with treatable depression) is a waste of all the potential and joy that person could have had and contributed back to their family and community.  The anguish of the actively depressed, and the anguish of their loved ones after a suicide, represent suffering that we should all be working hard to treat/avoid/prevent.  We can do much better in this area, and I think less easy access to guns would be a part of the solution.  Certainly not the whole solution, but it would help. 

 

Suicide in the setting of terminal illness is a completely different discussion, and small fraction of all suicides.  

[twa]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

 

But to make a further point.  A background check should include all those living under your roof imo.  If your son or spouse is a nutso, no guns for your household.

 

 

Not having access to a 30 round rifle COULD also reduce the number.  See what I did there?

 

I'd be fine with a law requiring safe storage for households with a nutso.....NOW identify the nutsos for me.

 

Completely disarming the household would not pass legal muster.

 

I'm fine with limiting magazines and have said so, I don't think it will have much impact and others are opposed to it though.

 

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

It is a failure in our ability to protect people from themselves

 

I agree with everything you said, but again I don't know where the line is when something should curtain a right. I just don't know. There's no firm scoring system I can use and then see where this one fits.

 

I understand what you're saying. I'm not a monster, and I feel terrible for the number of people who are affected by a suicide and I understand what it could mean for all of them if that person didn't successfully commit suicide because they didn't have a gun.

 

 

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, twa said:

I'm fine with limiting magazines and have said so, I don't think it will have much impact and others are opposed to it though.

 

Realistically, unless I'm missing an argument from someone that actually knows what they're talking about, we're talking about reload failure and whether that itself stops the shooting spree or whether it allows police (or anyone, really) to stop the person before they can continue shooting.

 

Reload failure is a real thing. Especially for people who use cheap weaponry and ammo, which the AR-15 community is super guilty of; I would guess more than any other, but if you lump all handguns into a  'handgun community' that might not be true... The sub 1500$ AR's (which it seems most people have, particularly the 600-800 range) are mostly garbage. (Not counting people who build their own, you can use quality parts for much cheaper.) 

 

Has it been released how/why the one guy over the weekend was caught? My gut was reload failure/jamming allowed the police to take him into custody and he couldn't do anything to make them shoot him.

 

In the interest of "doing things that may help a little" it's not a terrible idea. It's certainly not a real good idea on it's own, in my opinion. 

 

But I also don't have a need nor care to have 30+ round magazines, so it's easy for me to support something like it. It just doesn't affect me.

Edited August 7, 2019 by tshile

[twa]

high capacity magazines have a higher failure/jam rate, which of course is over long term which is less relevant to one time events.

 

I don't have the need for high capacity or 'assault' weapons, many others feel differently.

 

[tshile]

I would also add that one of these 100 round drums has a higher potential failure rate than a 30 round clip. 

 

Also a person with 3 30 round clips has a lot of options on reload failure. Including what is usually taught - dump the magazine that failed and load a new one. This should take someone that is comfortable with the gun about 5 seconds (I’m being generous to the idea depending on weapon and expertise it could be like 2 seconds)

 

If you have 1 100 round drum and it fails you’re sort of out of options. You have to eject the drum, fix the failure, and reattach. How long that takes is a function of what the failure is. If it requires emptying and reloading the drum entirely that would take a while...

 

there are reasons we don’t outfit majority of police or military with m16’s with 100 round drums. I assume reload failure rates and options to remedy would absolutely be one of them. 

 

it is entirely possible that outlawing a 100 round drum would actually make a mass shooting worse. 

 

Im not arguing we shouldn’t have a capacity limit. I’m not arguing that at all. I’m just providing information on the idea. 

 

Edit: I see @twa beat me to it  

Edited August 7, 2019 by tshile

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

Well I would turn to all the terrorist attacks throughout history that were designed to kill lots of people but they didn’t use guns. Seems to me the list includes, but is not limited to:

various explosive devices including entire vehicles turned into bombs (and we’ve seen this with domestic terrorism to, like mcvay)

 

planes (and we had a domestic terrorist fly a plane into a building)

 

knives, cars, blunt objects. 

 

Its been done. A lot. Concluding that mass murders wouldn’t commit mass murder without guns seems silly consider the rather large number of examples we have of them doing it without guns. 

 

Knives and blunt objects are not more deadly (in general).

 

Planes was a one time thing that is not equivalent to these attacks and attackers.

 

In general, isolated individual people that want to kill lots of people are not more successful in other countries than in the US.  In general, they are less effective.

 

Comparing the guys that carried out the last two shootings to an organized plan by a terrorist organization is a false comparison.

Edited August 7, 2019 by PeterMP

[Destino]

41 minutes ago, twa said:

I'm fine with limiting magazines and have said so, I don't think it will have much impact and others are opposed to it though.

Depends on how limited you're talking.  There's a lot of talk about how quickly skilled shooters can reload, but that assumes these shooters are skilled and that their skills translate well when under extreme stress.  What you do in practice and what you do when people are actively trying to stop you are different things. 

 

During reload people have a window of time to escape or attack the shooter, and people can cover a lot of ground in just a few seconds.  Especially when you're talking about indoor distances.  Most indoor rooms can be sprinted across (or out of) in very little time.  Seconds matter. 

 

Reduce capacity dramatically, down to around six, and mass shooters wouldn't be as effective and would be far more vulnerable. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

I think gun culture is definitely addictive. 

 

And we already have an incredibly large black market for guns. And there’s a large global black market too. 

 

I don’t get where the confidence in your opinions comes from. 

 

Guns aren't additive the way that drugs are.

 

My confidence comes from the evidence of every other developed western country in the world where these types of attacks are much more rare.

 

Without evidence, there is no reason to believe the US is different than every other developed western country and that if we adopted their gun laws, there is no reason why the result wouldn't be pretty much the same.

 

And there is no evidence of such a difference between Americans and other populations.

 

Generally, when the US does something that the European nations were doing or vice versa at the population level, the essentially effect is the same.

 

There's no reason to believe that guns would be any different.

Edited August 7, 2019 by PeterMP

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Planes was a one time thing that is not equivalent to these attacks and attackers.

It was a two time thing. 

 

9/11

and some white guy from Texas or Florida flew his plane into a building. An IRS building I think?

 

and no comparing them to organized terrorists is not a false comparison. Lone wolf terrorists are a real and very dangerous thing. 

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

Guns aren't additive the way that drugs are.

 

Yeah well maybe you should meet some gun nuts. 

 

[PeterMP]

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

It was a two time thing. 

 

9/11

and some white guy from Texas or Florida flew his plane into a building. An IRS building I think?

 

and no comparing them to organized terrorists is not a false comparison. Lone wolf terrorists are a real and very dangerous thing. 

 

Okay, but you get the point.  And the guy in Texas only killed one other person so it wasn't very effective.

 

I'm not saying they aren't, but they also aren't going to carry out a 9/11 like attack easily.

 

The guy last 2 shooters aren't (likely) more dangerous without guns because they are going to self-fund and organize a 9/11 like attack if they don't have guns.

 

Everywhere else in the developed western world, they (generally) use something like a knife and manage to attack a few people.

 

There's little reason to believe the US would be any different.

Edited August 7, 2019 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

Easiest thing to do would make it illegal to buy a gun under the age of 25, go after people and stores involved in illegal purchases, and require people to get a license approved by local law enforcement.

 

That makes much more sense than going after magazine size or assault weapons.  The Va Tech shooter only used a couple of hand guns.

 

Would gun deaths and mass shooting go to 0?  No, but we'd see an effect.

Edited August 7, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

11 minutes ago, Destino said:

Depends on how limited you're talking.  There's a lot of talk about how quickly skilled shooters can reload, but that assumes these shooters are skilled and that their skills translate well when under extreme stress.  What you do in practice and what you do when people are actively trying to stop you are different things. 

 

During reload people have a window of time to escape or attack the shooter, and people can cover a lot of ground in just a few seconds.  Especially when you're talking about indoor distances.  Most indoor rooms can be sprinted across (or out of) in very little time.  Seconds matter. 

 

Reduce capacity dramatically, down to around six, and mass shooters wouldn't be as effective and would be far more vulnerable. 

 

 

 

 

Which is why the tactics would change.

 

Plenty of ways to eliminate escape routes

 

If you think you can pass a six limit feel free, I still don't think it will make much difference

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Easiest thing to do would make it illegal to buy a gun under the age of 25, go after people and stores involved in illegal purchases, and require people to get a license approved by local law enforcement.

 

That makes much more sense than going after magazine size or assault weapons.  The Va Tech shooter only used a couple of hand guns.

 

Would gun deaths and mass shooting go to 0?  No, but we'd see an effect.

 

I think that much more effective, but you have to pass it first.....and it would probably not make it past the courts

[purbeast]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Easiest thing to do would make it illegal to buy a gun under the age of 25, go after people and stores involved in illegal purchases, and require people to get a license approved by local law enforcement.

 

That makes much more sense than going after magazine size or assault weapons.  The Va Tech shooter only used a couple of hand guns.

 

Would gun deaths and mass shooting go to 0?  No, but we'd see an effect.

I read wiki earlier on the Sandy Hook shooting, and the kid who did that got the guns from his mother who purchased all of them legally, then killed his mother.

 

My point is, what you are suggesting would have no affect on this scenario.

 

Now had the mother not had these weapons, it would.