Gun Control: The Conversation

[Curious George]

I have debated with them many times on here, and they routinely present completely illogical and absurd rebuttals in defense of their fetish, while completely ignoring any and all reasonable arguments or facts being presented to them. I finally realized that reason will never have an effect because they are responding to the gun issue entirely from a very deep-seated emotional need/delusion.

Have you considered that suggesting people should have the authority to restrict others fundamental rights is what is illogical and absurd? Have you considered that you are the emotional or delusional one, especially with your rhetoric and your insistence on asserting those who disagree with you have a fetish, and let us not forget about your assertion that one's genitals are somehow the problem.

 

[Thief]

Took this with permission, from an eloquent Lawyer friend of mine. Let's all get on the same page.

" If we want to ever make progress towards adequate gun control laws in the United States, we're going to have to stop calling for "assault rifle bans." That's a near-constant refrain, and it nearly constantly causes pro-gun people to instantly stop listening to everything else that follows, because they're going to immediately pivot to one of two claims: (1) "there is no such thing as an 'assault rifle' (false) and you're just scared of the aesthetics of the weapon;" or (2) "assault rifles are already illegal, and all of the weapons you don't like are just semi-automatic rifles" (better).

There is actually a legitimate definition of an "assault rifle," which is "a rifle with selective-fire capability that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine" -- it has three criteria: (1) selective fire, (2) intermediate cartridge, (3) detachable magazine. Generally speaking, selective-fire weapons, and therefore actual assault rifles, are already illegal to own in the United States. The average person can't go to his local gun shop and buy one. Acquiring one requires filing a federal application and completing an extensive approval and registration process; they can't be sold or otherwise transferred to another owner without permission from the ATFE; and they can't have been manufactured any more recently than 1986.

Advocates for adequate gun control laws in the United States would be speaking more accurately and would thereby gain credibility with those whom they seek to convince if they focused on the detachable-magazine aspect rather than incorrectly using the term "assault rifle" to refer to rifles that differ from actual assault rifles only in that they are semi-automatic instead of selective-fire. The issue is the ability that detachable magazines give to fire numerous rounds quickly and reload quickly, which isn't necessary in any context other than killing people.

What we should be doing is making it illegal to own semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, because if I'm hunting, a bolt-action rifle is more than adequate (in fact, one with a 5-round detachable magazine is probably adequate for that, but I could see why ranchers or someone defending livestock against wildlife might want a bolt-action with a larger magazine capacity than 5 rounds). And if I'm looking for personal or home self-defense, a rifle isn't even close to my best option; both handguns and shotguns are better suited to that purpose than rifles.

Of course, many pro-gun people will still disagree with the above position. However, we won't be giving them the ammo (so to speak) to just derail the entire argument and stop listening the minute we incorrectly classify something as an "assault rifle." Instead, they'll have to engage in the actual, legitimate discussion about whether semi-automatic rifles and/or detachable magazines on rifles are necessary for peaceable purposes. They'll have to explain why they can't adequately hunt with a bolt-action rifle or defend themselves with a handgun or shotgun. From there we can maybe move on to more nuanced arguments about magazine size, whether semi-automatic weapons are necessary at all, arguments about various accessories, etc. But we'll never get past the first sentence as long as we keep talking about "assault rifles."

If we want to get anywhere, we have to speak like we know what we're talking about. "

not sure if I can be appreciated here.....

if I am assaulted.....with a weapon
I want to return fire

if my weapon shoots as fast as his
I might have a chance

 

[PureX]

Have you considered that suggesting people should have the authority to restrict others fundamental rights is what is illogical and absurd?

Do you understand that this is exactly why human beings have formed governing bodies throughout human history? That we humans are social animals that cannot live, except in groups. And yet in order for us to live together in these groups, we have to be willing to forgo out desire for total freedom and autonomy to accommodate an equal degree of freedom and autonomy for those humans we are living with and among as a group. We simply cannot just do as we please, and survive. We must control and limit our behaviors for the sake of the well-being of the group of humans we are living among and with, and from whom we in tern receive that ability. And to help us do this (because we may not want to do it) we establish forms of governance to ensure that the behaviors of any one individual not be allowed to harm the others individuals in the group.

Why do you not see the absolute necessity for behavioral governance, determined by the group, and imposed on the individuals within it, for the survival of all? How do you imagine that humans could live without this form of collective behavioral limitation?

 

[Revoltingest]

I have debated with them many times on here, and they routinely present completely illogical and absurd rebuttals in defense of their fetish, while completely ignoring any and all reasonable arguments or facts being presented to them. I finally realized that reason will never have an effect because they are responding to the gun issue entirely from a very deep-seated emotional need/delusion.

I've seen criticism, but not actual debate.
Calling our views a "fetish" doesn't rise to the level of cogent argument.
It suggests lack of understanding of the other side.

 

[McBell]

Guns are fetish objects in this country. And what that means is that they are the focus of an emotionally generated obsession. As such, reason will have very little effect on those who have succumbed to this fetish. And reasons offered against engaging in this fetish will be met with any and all unreasonable rebuttal as the fetishists cannot hear or accept reason. Their minds and ears are lost to the howl of their emotional need.

Example: it has been a long known fact that bringing a firearm of any kind into a household increases the likelihood that someone in that household will be injured or killed by a firearm, or will unjustly injure or kill someone else, with it. This is a fact that cannot be disputed, and has been available as public knowledge for many decades. Yet if you assert this fact to a gun fetishist, it will have no effect on their obsession with firearms as self-protection, at all. Even though the reasoning and the data are obvious, and indisputable, they will invent all sorts of idiotic arguments to try and dispute it, deflect it, or dismiss it, and will succeed in doing so in their own minds. Truth, logic, and reason have no effect, because the fetish is an obsession with the fantasy of self-empowerment, with the idea of autonomy, and control over one's own fate. In reality firearms do not provide any of these conditions. But the gun has become the archetypical symbol for the illusion of these (thanks to Hollywood pandering to this cultural fantasy) at a time when many American males are feeling distinctly disempowered and enslaved to economic and cultural forces far beyond their control.

This modern male obsession with guns and the illusion of self-empowerment attached to them has reached the point of being an all-out addiction for many. And a major component of addiction is denial. Denial so strong that no amount of reasoning, factuality, pleading, or dire results can overcome it. Reasoning with a gun fetishist is like reasoning with a drunk, or a junkie. It simply doesn't work. They cannot hear reason. They WILL NOT hear reason. They are lost in their obsession with the illusion of self-empowerment, autonomy, and control that they believe their guns give them. Even though this is logically absurd, and factually untrue.

Interestingly enough, this exact same phenomenon is found in those who propose laws that will not change a damn thing other than make them feel they helped and then absolutely flat out refuse to explain how their completely worthless law will prevent anything and instead make bold empty false accusations that the person(s) asking them to explain how their proposed law would have made a difference thinks that if the new proposed law is not 100% effective then NO law should even be proposed.

Biden to unveil gun control measures, appoint ATF chief​

 

[McBell]

Right. I was just pointing out that is a way to get around a background check.

Fair enough.

 

[Curious George]

Do you understand that this is exactly why human beings have formed governing bodies throughout human history? That we humans are social animals that cannot live, except in groups. And yet in order for us to live together in these groups, we have to be willing to forgo out desire for total freedom and autonomy to accommodate an equal degree of freedom and autonomy for those humans we are living with and among as a group. We simply cannot just do as we please, and survive. We must control and limit our behaviors for the sake of the well-being of the group of humans we are living among and with, and from whom we in tern receive that ability. And to help us do this (because we may not want to do it) we establish forms of governance to ensure that the behaviors of any one individual not be allowed to harm the others individuals in the group.

Why do you not see the absolute necessity for behavioral governance, determined by the group, and imposed on the individuals within it, for the survival of all? How do you imagine that humans could live without this form of collective behavioral limitation?

Sounds like an argument for slavery to be honest.

No one is talking about a "desire for total freedom and autonomy."

You seem to mischaracterize the oppositional view and then rant against that imagined argument. Are you aware of that?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Took this with permission, from an eloquent Lawyer friend of mine. Let's all get on the same page.

" If we want to ever make progress towards adequate gun control laws in the United States, we're going to have to stop calling for "assault rifle bans." That's a near-constant refrain, and it nearly constantly causes pro-gun people to instantly stop listening to everything else that follows, because they're going to immediately pivot to one of two claims: (1) "there is no such thing as an 'assault rifle' (false) and you're just scared of the aesthetics of the weapon;" or (2) "assault rifles are already illegal, and all of the weapons you don't like are just semi-automatic rifles" (better).

There is actually a legitimate definition of an "assault rifle," which is "a rifle with selective-fire capability that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine" -- it has three criteria: (1) selective fire, (2) intermediate cartridge, (3) detachable magazine. Generally speaking, selective-fire weapons, and therefore actual assault rifles, are already illegal to own in the United States. The average person can't go to his local gun shop and buy one. Acquiring one requires filing a federal application and completing an extensive approval and registration process; they can't be sold or otherwise transferred to another owner without permission from the ATFE; and they can't have been manufactured any more recently than 1986.

Advocates for adequate gun control laws in the United States would be speaking more accurately and would thereby gain credibility with those whom they seek to convince if they focused on the detachable-magazine aspect rather than incorrectly using the term "assault rifle" to refer to rifles that differ from actual assault rifles only in that they are semi-automatic instead of selective-fire. The issue is the ability that detachable magazines give to fire numerous rounds quickly and reload quickly, which isn't necessary in any context other than killing people.

What we should be doing is making it illegal to own semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, because if I'm hunting, a bolt-action rifle is more than adequate (in fact, one with a 5-round detachable magazine is probably adequate for that, but I could see why ranchers or someone defending livestock against wildlife might want a bolt-action with a larger magazine capacity than 5 rounds). And if I'm looking for personal or home self-defense, a rifle isn't even close to my best option; both handguns and shotguns are better suited to that purpose than rifles.

Of course, many pro-gun people will still disagree with the above position. However, we won't be giving them the ammo (so to speak) to just derail the entire argument and stop listening the minute we incorrectly classify something as an "assault rifle." Instead, they'll have to engage in the actual, legitimate discussion about whether semi-automatic rifles and/or detachable magazines on rifles are necessary for peaceable purposes. They'll have to explain why they can't adequately hunt with a bolt-action rifle or defend themselves with a handgun or shotgun. From there we can maybe move on to more nuanced arguments about magazine size, whether semi-automatic weapons are necessary at all, arguments about various accessories, etc. But we'll never get past the first sentence as long as we keep talking about "assault rifles."

If we want to get anywhere, we have to speak like we know what we're talking about. "

When I hear about "assault weapons bans", it makes me think of this sort of thing:

It is the essence of doing nothing and trying to pass it off as doing something.

 

[McBell]

You seem to mischaracterize the oppositional view and then rant against that imagined argument. Are you aware of that?

The link in post #25 shows that this is exactly what they are doing...

 

[McBell]

When I hear about "assault weapons bans", it makes me think of this sort of thing:

It is the essence of doing nothing and trying to pass it off as doing something.

I have noticed that the majority of times the term "assault weapon" is used is it referring to weapons that "look scary"...

 

[The Hammer]

Why do right wing Christians want guns so much, is it because they think they are going to have to kill all the sinners?

See my previous thread: Gun Control A History

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Though what you said is important... I think by and large the issue is greater than just that.

Two years ago this was posted:

The top 10 most dangerous cities also have the strictest enforcement of gun laws…..and under Democratic city administrations for decades.

• 10. Richmond, California
• 113% higher than the national average. For property crime, Richmond, CA is 62% higher than the California average and 52% higher than the national average.
• 9. Kansas City, Missouri
• The city violent crime rate for Kansas City in 2016 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 316.7% and the city property crime rate in Kansas City was higher than the national property crime rate average by 77.78%.
• 8. Newark, New Jersey
• The city violent crime rate for Newark in 2016 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 135.96% and the city property crime rate in Newark was lower than the national property crime rate average by 8.55%.
• 7. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
• The city violent crime rate for Milwaukee in 2016 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 286.08% and the city property crime rate in Milwaukee was higher than the national property crime rate average by 65.83%.
• 6. Springfield, Massachusetts
• The city violent crime rate for Springfield in 2016 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 159.52% and the city property crime rate in Springfield was higher than the national property crime rate average by 34.33%.
• 5. Baltimore, Maryland
• The city violent crime rate for Baltimore in 2016 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 348.39% and the city property crime rate in Baltimore was higher than the national property crime rate average by 94.96%.
• 4. Cleveland, Ohio
• The city violent crime rate for Cleveland in 2016 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 310.73% and the city property crime rate in Cleveland was higher than the national property crime rate average by 116.93%.
• 3. New Haven, Connecticut
• The city violent crime rate for New Haven in 2016 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 135.38% and the city property crime rate in New Haven was higher than the national property crime rate average by 71.82%.
• 2. Oakland, California
• The city violent crime rate for Oakland in 2016 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 259.04% and the city property crime rate in Oakland was higher than the national property crime rate average by 129.96%.
• 1. Little Rock, Arkansas
• The city violent crime rate for Little Rock in 2016 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 285.62% and the city property crime rate in Little Rock was higher than the national property crime rate average by 181.48%.

Who are the top 10 cities with the toughest gun laws? - Quora

If stricter laws didn't change anything and with the advent of the craziness of today, I think people are just against any additional gun control on law abiding citizens. (personal opinion)

News flash, red or blue, dem or rep, larger cities have more violence.
And what about the Wild West? Gun laws and policies back then were way more strict across the board, and proper citizens would not want the attention that carrying a firearm (especially open) would bring. And it was banned in many, many places. Laws get relaxed, guns become more common, we start to have more gun problems, we get more guns, we have more gun problems, so we get some guns and still have gun problems.

 

[Kenny]

And that's where discussion about background check loopholes, trafficking between state boundaries etc. gets discussed. Take here in WA, my wife (or anyone) can buy a gun and then gift it to me, with minimal oversight. It's how we obtained ours actually.

A lot of these big cities guns, come from out of their jurisdictions (check milwaukee or Chicago for example). Which is why people want better federal oversight and gun control.

Edit: Also the bolded portion is just political party baiting. Correlation does not equal causation in this instance. Crime rates go up as population density goes up.

Yes... the "older portion is just political party baiting". I was interested in the statistics and not the baiting.

Agreed that we should check loopholes but as I said... the 10 most violent cities have the most stringent laws. So what is the real issue?

 

[The Hammer]

Yes... the "older portion is just political party baiting". I was interested in the statistics and not the baiting.

Agreed that we should check loopholes but as I said... the 10 most violent cities have the most stringent laws. So what is the real issue?

Loopholes, gun shows, no set enforced federal standard (buy one place, bring illegally to another for instance). Mental health.

 

[McBell]

Loopholes, gun shows, no set enforced federal standard (buy one place, bring illegally to another for instance). Mental health.

How about we START by enforcing the laws already on the books?
Then we can see what is and is not actually working.

Personally, I see no use in passing ineffective laws that will not be enforced anyway.
And how many laws will be passed that would be effective if only they were actually enforced?

As it stand now, you can not say which laws currently in effect are working and which are not working simply because the current laws are not being enforced.
Background checks are a prime example.
Chances are if lies on the application for a background check are discovered, there will be no repercussions for lying on the background check application.
The background check itself is worthless if the information needed for a reliable background check is not entered into the system.
Mental illnesses that would disqualify one from legally purchasing a firearm are not currently included in background checks.
And yes, it can be set up in a manner to not be a HIPAA violation.
But we still need to have the information entered into the system...

So as it stands now, background checks are broken.
Meaning they are not nearly as effective as they already could be if the information was entered like it is supposed to be.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Have you considered that suggesting people should have the authority to restrict others fundamental rights is what is illogical and absurd? Have you considered that you are the emotional or delusional one, especially with your rhetoric and your insistence on asserting those who disagree with you have a fetish, and let us not forget about your assertion that one's genitals are somehow the problem.

Is it illogical for us to expect our country to be more comparable to the other Western civilizations rather than Brazil?

 

[Curious George]

Is it illogical for us to expect our country to be more comparable to the other Western civilizations rather than Brazil?

Comparable in what ways? In homicide rate, suicide rate, or in whether a certain law is passed? Yes to the two former; no to the latter most.

 

[PureX]

I've seen criticism, but not actual debate.
Calling our views a "fetish" doesn't rise to the level of cogent argument.
It suggests lack of understanding of the other side.

The term "fetish" is accurate. Do you understand what a fetish is? I do. And I have explained it on here a number of times. I also have seen no reasonable rebuttal to my use of the term in this instance. All I see instead are absurd 'counterpoints' that only support the definition of this emotional obsession with guns in the U.S. as a fetish.

 

[PureX]

Interestingly enough, this exact same phenomenon is found in those who propose laws that will not change a damn thing other than make them feel they helped and then absolutely flat out refuse to explain how their completely worthless law will prevent anything and instead make bold empty false accusations that the person(s) asking them to explain how their proposed law would have made a difference thinks that if the new proposed law is not 100% effective then NO law should even be proposed.

Biden to unveil gun control measures, appoint ATF chief​

Ah, the "nut-huh, YOU did it!" argument. AND the single instance equates to ALL instances argument, in the same post.

 

[PureX]

Sounds like an argument for slavery to be honest.

No one is talking about a "desire for total freedom and autonomy."

You seem to mischaracterize the oppositional view and then rant against that imagined argument. Are you aware of that?

Your desire to play with guns endangers the lives and well-being of the humans you live among and with. That's why they have the right to tell you that you can't play with guns. Just like your right to drive drunk endangers the lives and well-being of the humans you share the roads with, and so they have the right to tell you that you can't drive drunk. Most of us understand this need for restricting our behaviors for the sake of our fellow humans by the age of 5 or 6. But here in the U.S., thanks to 100 years of commercial advertising and grotesque pandering by politicians, many grown ups still can't accept being told what they can and can't do by their fellow humans, through the mechanism of government. You appear, here, to be one of them.