Support NeoGAF

[appaws]

A gun isn't a necessity for self defense.
Heck, if a shooting started on a street, I'd take a car over a handgun anytime.
Same in the unlikely event I'd want to hurt dozens of people on a market or any kind of public gathering on the street.

Cars, more importantly, serve an actual purpose other than hurting people; guns don't. But strangely, it is for you normal to limit the harmless (relatively speaking) and usufull one, but to not keep in check the harmful one, that is only useful in some cases that arise from the fact that they are not kept inn check in the first place?

For self-defense, maybe. But the useful one for serving as a check on government is guns, not cars.

Remember that with the 2nd Amendment, personal self-defense and hunting are not the central purpose. The central purpose is to serve as a check on tyrannical government. Hunting and personal self-defense against crime, etc. are human rights and a wonderful outgrowth of the primary cause, but they are not the main intent.

I get that in these halcyon days of state largesse, bread and circuses disguised as reality TV and the NFL, it is tough to imagine things going really bad. But look at some other parts of the world, like El Salvador or Syria. Shit is really fucked up. Those poor people are not any different from Westerners. We are lucky that the course of history has worked out in our favor and we live in affluence. We should not close ourselves off to the possibility that we (or maybe our descendants) could face very different challenges than we do.

Here's what I don't understand with all these government conspiracies: you are aware that if it wanted to, the state would have much better means to get its way than to outright fight its population? And do it in such a way that it escapes the attention of the citizen?
Heck, I'm pretty sure they're doing it for a long time now.

The first amendment was written in another time too, yes; it however stays relevant (and is even more so relevant with the uprising of the internet) as communication has continued in the same direction as when it was written; militia and the british threat hasn't.

I don't believe in any crazy conspiracies. I'm not fucking Alex Jones. But I do believe in being prepared and in maintaining individual rights. It's similar to a fire extinguisher. Having a fire extinguisher does not mean you are a paranoid maniac obsessed with fire, it is just a means of being prepared for an unlikely event. I never said a tyranny was imminent in the U.S., and I don't think that. But one of the reasons it is not likely is because we stay vigilant and don't learn to trust the state too much.

The 2nd Amendment was not only about the British threat. It was about the American threat, and threats that may exist some time in the future that we cannot predict. Democracies do turn bad sometimes, right? It happens. Weimar Germany was a very progressive and vibrant democratic state for a short time. Evil people can come to control the levers of power, even in a democracy.

 

[ThLunarian]

There's a guy on my Facebook feed who is pro guns, and his positions are so well researched and extensively cited that he consistently demolishes me whenever I try to advocate for gun control. He's also a very prolific poster so he never passes on the chance of arguing with me.

It's frustrating because I have to keep quiet because I don't have time to do as much research as he has.

 

[Jisgsaw]

Remember that with the 2nd Amendment, personal self-defense and hunting are not the central purpose. The central purpose is to serve as a check on tyrannical government. Hunting and personal self-defense against crime, etc. are human rights and a wonderful outgrowth of the primary cause, but they are not the main intent.

I hope you know that that is an interpretation, because in no way is this explicitely stated.
And once again, the world changes; weapons aren't really the best mean to fight a corrupt state anymore.

I get that in these halcyon days of state largesse, bread and circuses disguised as reality TV and the NFL, it is tough to imagine things going really bad. But look at some other parts of the world, like El Salvador or Syria. Shit is really fucked up. Those poor people are not any different from Westerners. We are lucky that the course of history has worked out in our favor and we live in affluence. We should not close ourselves off to the possibility that we (or maybe our descendants) could face [...]

The 2nd Amendment was not only about the British threat. It was about the American threat, and threats that may exist some time in the future that we cannot predict. Democracies do turn bad sometimes, right? It happens. Weimar Germany was a very progressive and vibrant democratic state for a short time. Evil people can come to control the levers of power, even in a democracy.

Do you even know anything about the examples you cited?
The weimar republic was a very weak state, without an army nor armed police force, that had to pay back a heavy debt, while facing a population that didn't underatand why the Versailles treaty was signed, and fight off the biggest economical crisis in history.

Syria (and the whole of the middle east and Africa) suffer from the post colonization and absurd borders that were created, which lead to an extrem political instability. Oh, and they have weak armies.

There's no chance in hell this could happen to the US in the next couple of centuries; and by then I'm pretty sure the "gun to protect against the government" argument will be even less relevant than now.

 

[HyperionX]

There's a guy on my Facebook feed who is pro guns, and his positions are so well researched and extensively cited that he consistently demolishes me whenever I try to advocate for gun control. He's also a very prolific poster so he never passes on the chance of arguing with me.

It's frustrating because I have to keep quiet because I don't have time to do as much research as he has.

There's very few real research that are actually supports pro-gun positions. If you run into a person who's like that, there's a very good chance he's citing the usual suspects (Lott, Kleck, that fake Harvard study, etc.). Most of those claims are easily debunked.

A good place to visit is http://www.armedwithreason.com/ for some counter arguments. Another is here: http://propagandaprofessor.net/tag/gun-control/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/wiki/academic_sources

 

[appaws]

I hope you know that that is an interpretation, because in no way is this explicitely stated.
And once again, the world changes; weapons aren't really the best mean to fight a corrupt state anymore.



Do you even know anything about the examples you cited?
The weimar republic was a very weak state, without an army nor armed police force, that had to pay back a heavy debt, while facing a population that didn't underatand why the Versailles treaty was signed, and fight off the biggest economical crisis in history.

Syria (and the whole of the middle east and Africa) suffer from the post colonization and absurd borders that were created, which lead to an extrem political instability. Oh, and they have weak armies.

There's no chance in hell this could happen to the US in the next couple of centuries; and by then I'm pretty sure the "gun to protect against the government" argument will be even less relevant than now.

I only use Weimar as an example to show that democracies are not free from being co-opted by evil people. So many responses to me are like "but, but,, but democracy" as if that were some magic word. (Not saying you.)

We cannot know what will happen in "the next couple of centuries." I wish we could. Human events, disasters, etc. have a way of blindsiding people.

I think your arguments are earnest and well-made, and you reach the logical conclusion of your point of view. I think we can never agree just because I admit that my arguments are ideological. (I think statist arguments are ideological too, but statists almost never recognize it in themselves, they think it is pure pragmatism.) Individual liberty is just not something to be surrendered in my world view. I recognize my status as an extremist, actually I'm quite proud of it. I recognize that the average human being is fairly easily convinced to surrender liberty in exchange for security.

 

[TheExecutive]

The second amendment was put there in a different time.
As other have argued, with or without guns, the state could screw you over in the unlikely scenario democracy fails and it suddenly would want to. Also a state using its military (which comes from among the citizens, which have families there) is hardly an easy feat to do.

The argument still stands although the US is fairly healthy now it's times when it's not that the second amendment will have its value.

 

[Frog-fu]

YYYEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

I think....I think it moved!

IF YOU DARE TO TRY TO TAKE OUR GUNS AGAIN, MARK MY WORDS, 1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN.

This motherfucker.

 

[TheExecutive]

Absolutely. I can't believe people actually use the automobile industry as the basis of their counter-point. It isn't the first time.

And you've hit the nail on the head: photo identification, license registration renewals, insurance, constant inspections to ensure safety standards; and on top of that, everyone is required to go through textbook courses and exams to prove they're sufficiently trained. And by law, you have to explain any mental illnesses to your local licensing agency. Or else.

Where the fuck are the gun regulations? You'd think all the "safe" gun owners would support something like that; you'd think that if you and a stranger are the only two against a threat, that the stranger would actually have the mental faculties, the know-how, and the cojones, to use a gun properly and not shoot you in the back of the head. I mean, that's a concern too, right?

And just a side note people, the second amendment was written at a time where most "guns" were single-shot muskets, where warfare was determined by the amount of soldiers you had on a grassy knoll. There were no rapid-fire triggers, there were no dot sights, there wasn't even kevlar or guns with large magazines. You know what's even scarier? The bullets of a regular 9mm can go through brick and drywall and kill you in your fucking sleep. I don't think the country's forefathers ever expected powerful weapons like that.

I'm just a frustrated Canadian here.

Yes a different time. Yes, there are crazy people out there and yes people should have to be trained to use a firearm. However, limiting the type of firearm is not acceptable in the constitution.

Most responsible gun owners are in favour of training and is possibly the best way to regulate the industry. People who want to hunt have to take training why not make everyone else?

Also pay trained professionals as trainers both in guns and mental health and you have a better solution than we have now

 

[MommyLongLegs]

Guns don't kill people.

uhhh NSFW because swears and stuff

 

[spazchicken]

My thing is, without a total marshal law and military style confiscation of all firearms in the US, "control" means nothing and will do nothing, now or in the future. The state that this last tragedy happened in is one of the most strict states in the US when it comes to firearms and it probably hurt more than it helped.

I know for a fact that if I wanted to do some crazy stuff in California, I will be uncontested in probably 90% of the state or more, since it's legal to buy but very, very difficult to carry, to the point to where you may as well say it's illegal to carry.

I saw this Occupy Democrat thing on Facebook today that said "where were the 'good guys with guns' during the San Bernardino shootings? Gun control, YEAH!!!"

I'm not a political person but I think the best person who could answer that is Democrat law makers. All the police could do was take pictures of bodies. But I wouldn't want a state full of gunners either and the 2nd amendment is here to stay. If it could go away, it would have a long time ago.

As a nation, we're stuck.

 

[The Maverick]

There are a lot of stupid people who are attached to killing weapons in America, so there is a zero percent chance of gun regulation in America, at least in our lifetimes. If I could go back in time, shredding the 2nd amendment would be on my to do list.

 

[Syph Medwes]

It sucks how right from the first reply you could tell how this thread would go.
OP, you made an effort to be unbiased in your original post, so I will make an effort to give you a good reply.

Personally, I'm not against an increase in gun control. I'm definitely pro-2nd-amendment in theory, but I recognize things need tweaking. Background checks for example, or improved registries (I mean how can you in some places sell your firearm without a paper trail? Seems a bit much).

However, and this applies to the bracketed part too, proponents of guns will feel an encroachment on their rights. In principle, I understand their plight, because it deals with privacy. For example, why should the government be able to track the private purchase of a gun between consenting individuals? I typically have quite the laissez-faire approach to things (spoilers, econ major), so I understand the root of that argument (of course, the other side is quite easy to argue for as well, you'd think it'd be common sense).

However, the question needs to be at what point does the government need to step in and impose regulations or a registry, etc. It's analogous to even just the simple governmental powers debate if you think about. Such as how many freedoms are we willing to give up in the name of "security" or "defence"? Is gun control one of them?

I think to a certain extent yes, but it's an argument that needs to be framed in a different way, ie. pertaining to principles, rather than knee-jerk reactions to killings or dogmatic adherence to the original interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0&feature=youtu.be

 

[Bandit1]

I really don't see how passing more gun control laws would be very effective. I believe the city of Chicago has pretty strict gun laws but also has an enormous amount of gun violence. California bans the use of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, yet the killers in San Bernardino got their hands on multiple large capacity magazines without anyone knowing it.

Perhaps something could be done with background checks? I'm not sure what they consist of so I can't really comment on that. The problem with that is that criminals can still get their hands on a gun even if they can't pass a background check, because there are already millions of guns owned privately in the U.S. that could be bought or even stolen without the authorities knowing where they went.

Some argue for banning certain types of guns. Maybe you want to ban "assault" style weapons like the AR-15:

Looks scary right?

But this Ruger Mini 14 ranch rifle:

Eh, that's not so bad. Its itended purpose is as a ranch rifle, and it's even called Mini. Certainly doesn't look like an "assault rifle"
But it uses the same ammunition as the AR-15. And can be fitted with at least a 20 round magazine. Both are semi-automatic. So are you going to ban one but not the other? Are you going to ban the higher capacity mags? What about all the ones already out there? You certainly can't find them all, and people certainly won't be giving them up.

Okay, so even if we banned all semi-auto rifles (which would probably lead to rioting in the streets) what about the semi-auto handguns like the popular Glock 19:

You can shoot it just as fast as an AR-15. It has a 15 round magazine. Okay, we pass a law to get it down to 10. No problem.

With a little (or a lot) of practice, you can get pretty quick with those reloads.

But really, none of that matters. Because people who want to kill will find a way to kill, be it by bullets, bombs, or blades.

Americans have the right to own firearms. I have one. Just like millions of other law abiding citizens. And like many guns mine usually just sits in a safe place, and maybe I'll get it out a couple of times a year and shoot a few rounds off so I don't forget how. I don't have a concealed carry permit, I just keep it in the house. For me, it's just about being prepared. I live about 15 miles from the nearest police station. I have a gun because if someone is breaking into my house in the middle of the night, calling the cops won't do me any good. And honestly I don't expect anyone to be breaking into my house anytime soon. But if the situation ever arises, I have the means to defend myself if someone wishes me harm.

My uncles and cousins own many more guns than I do. They like to hunt deer, it was never really my thing. But every once in a while they'll shoot a deer and cut it up and we'll have some deer chili. Good stuff.

The problem is human beings. Some are good, but some are evil. And evil lies in the heart, not in the tool. You could use a Ford Raptor to run down a bunch of people standing in line for Black Friday, or walk into a movie theater and start slashing throats with a katana. You might not get as high of a body count as you would with an AR-15 I grant you that, and I can empathize with you for wanting to find some way to limit the amount of casualties in a mass shooting type of situation, but I don't see the effectiveness of more gun control laws. Terrorists and criminals will either find a way to get what has been banned, or use another means to achieve their goal. Timothy McVeigh killed more people in Oklahoma City with a truck bomb than 8 terrorists in Paris did with their guns and explosives, and he almost got away. The 9/11 hijackers killed more than 3,000 people by hijacking planes using boxcutters. Terrorists will always find a way to inflict damage, no amount of gun control will change that.

 

[dabig2]

There's very few real research that are actually supports pro-gun positions. If you run into a person who's like that, there's a very good chance he's citing the usual suspects (Lott, Kleck, that fake Harvard study, etc.). Most of those claims are easily debunked.

A good place to visit is http://www.armedwithreason.com/ for some counter arguments. Another is here: http://propagandaprofessor.net/tag/gun-control/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/wiki/academic_sources

Good stuff. Here's some more comprehensive research on the topic as well:
http://www.thetrace.org/topics/
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/09/gun-laws-work-criminals-effectiveness-research/

And, well, this isn't more research as just offering more perspective. But Richard Hofstadter's takedown of the entire gun debate in 19 fucking 70 should be required reading for everyone. I think he frames it extremely well, and unfortunately, we haven't heeded his warnings and observations for 45 years and counting.

http://www.americanheritage.com/content/america-gun-culture

 

[gutter_trash]

Guns don't kill people.

uhhh NSFW because swears and stuff

his Everyday Normal Guy is still his best

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PsnxDQvQpw

 

[HyperionX]

I really don't see how passing more gun control laws would be very effective. I believe the city of Chicago has pretty strict gun laws but also has an enormous amount of gun violence. California bans the use of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, yet the killers in San Bernardino got their hands on multiple large capacity magazines without anyone knowing it.

Perhaps something could be done with background checks? I'm not sure what they consist of so I can't really comment on that. The problem with that is that criminals can still get their hands on a gun even if they can't pass a background check, because there are already millions of guns owned privately in the U.S. that could be bought or even stolen without the authorities knowing where they went.

Some argue for banning certain types of guns. Maybe you want to ban "assault" style weapons like the AR-15:

Looks scary right?

But this Ruger Mini 14 ranch rifle:

Eh, that's not so bad. Its itended purpose is as a ranch rifle, and it's even called Mini. Certainly doesn't look like an "assault rifle"
But it uses the same ammunition as the AR-15. And can be fitted with at least a 20 round magazine. Both are semi-automatic. So are you going to ban one but not the other? Are you going to ban the higher capacity mags? What about all the ones already out there? You certainly can't find them all, and people certainly won't be giving them up.

Okay, so even if we banned all semi-auto rifles (which would probably lead to rioting in the streets) what about the semi-auto handguns like the popular Glock 19:

You can shoot it just as fast as an AR-15. It has a 15 round magazine. Okay, we pass a law to get it down to 10. No problem.

With a little (or a lot) of practice, you can get pretty quick with those reloads.

But really, none of that matters. Because people who want to kill will find a way to kill, be it by bullets, bombs, or blades.

Americans have the right to own firearms. I have one. Just like millions of other law abiding citizens. And like many guns mine usually just sits in a safe place, and maybe I'll get it out a couple of times a year and shoot a few rounds off so I don't forget how. I don't have a concealed carry permit, I just keep it in the house. For me, it's just about being prepared. I live about 15 miles from the nearest police station. I have a gun because if someone is breaking into my house in the middle of the night, calling the cops won't do me any good. And honestly I don't expect anyone to be breaking into my house anytime soon. But if the situation ever arises, I have the means to defend myself if someone wishes me harm.

My uncles and cousins own many more guns than I do. They like to hunt deer, it was never really my thing. But every once in a while they'll shoot a deer and cut it up and we'll have some deer chili. Good stuff.

The problem is human beings. Some are good, but some are evil. And evil lies in the heart, not in the tool. You could use a Ford Raptor to run down a bunch of people standing in line for Black Friday, or walk into a movie theater and start slashing throats with a katana. You might not get as high of a body count as you would with an AR-15 I grant you that, and I can empathize with you for wanting to find some way to limit the amount of casualties in a mass shooting type of situation, but I don't see the effectiveness of more gun control laws. Terrorists and criminals will either find a way to get what has been banned, or use another means to achieve their goal. Timothy McVeigh killed more people in Oklahoma City with a truck bomb than 8 terrorists in Paris did with their guns and explosives, and he almost got away. The 9/11 hijackers killed more than 3,000 people by hijacking planes using boxcutters. Terrorists will always find a way to inflict damage, no amount of gun control will change that.

One of the simplest solutions that hasn't yet been imposed even in California is banning removable magazines altogether. Sadly, a bill that could have done that was vetoed in 2013*. I'm curious whether the governor will allow that bill to pass next time around.

* More info: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-san-bernardino-gun-control-20151204-story.html

 

[Not]

I sure got an earful of it when I was going hard on my family the day of the shooting. None of it makes sense when held up to logic-- it's almost as fucking faith-based as religion. Christians in this country have been 100% institutionally brainwashed by corporations.

Guys, the "we dont ban knives" argument is so fucking dumb. Unless you're a ninja, you're not going to kill 14 people with a knife in 2 minutes.

 

[Not]

The point isn't whether it would work or not, it's that we haven't even tried it. Compare the potential hiccups with gun control to the effectiveness of the TSA's policies.

One was gleefully put into action without any fuss. The other apparently requires eons of debate, despite the inarguably higher threat. Does that make any sense to you?

 

[Anjelus_]

I actually really despise this notion people have that a gun owning public doesn't act as a check on tyrannical government because the military would absolutely crush them in a fight.

I rather not hypothesize about fighting a tyrannical, future version of the U.S. military, so let's assume we get invaded by a comparable army.

If you really think about the counter-argument you're making, it's completely wrong. Literally all over the world, even in our own recent wars, you've had under-armed militias taking on powerful militaries. An armed populace is a constant pain in the ass for modern militaries anywhere.

Would the armed civies win? Nah. Would tons of them die? Yea. Would the casualties be wildly disproportionate? Of course. But I can guarantee you'd have decades worth of guerrilla war on your hands.

Even with the most wildly repressive tactics you can think of, armed insurgencies are a pain in the ass. How much more brutal can a conventional army be than, say, the Wehrmacht fighting partisans in Eastern Europe, who despite being bloody as fuck, barely made a dent?

I don't have a dog in this fight either way, but really think about the experience of the U.S. military in post-WW2 conflicts next time you say "Haha stupid American gun owner, you would be completely crushed in that scenario." You're talking about millions of gun owners here and hundreds of millions of unregistered guns, of all kinds, out there in the wild.