Gun Control

[His Divine Shadow]

Well, I hope the americans manage that as well, but I'm not one, despite how I might come off at times

[PeZook]

Well, I hope the americans manage that as well, but I'm not one, despite how I might come off at times

Hm. Yeah, funny, your location is clearly stated yet somehow I thought you were American.

Good camouflage?

[General Zod]

It depends on the situation. I'm referring to people obsessively analyzing the speed of their speed-draw technique so that they can shoot and kill a mugger who got the jump on them, or shooting the Aurora killer or whatever, which ARE action movie scenarios.

I don't see anyone talking about speed-draws here.

In the US that's true, because your country is at war with itself. Everywhere else that's not Mexico or Somalia, a traffic stop is the most boring thing a cop can do, and cops don't talk with you while their partner nervously eyes the area with his hand around his holster.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Edit: Looky what I found.

In supposedly peaceful and first-world Canada, traffic stops rank at number 5. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2 ... 54-eng.htm

[Broomstick]

I hope so, too. The problem you're facing now is that while a 4.2 average is a nice reduction, some cities in the US are like freakin' war zones. The most dangeorus city in Poland has 2.8 murders per 100 000 inhabitants, while Detroit has IIRC 30+. When I saw that number I immediately thought of Robocop, because come on, man.

That is the reason Robocop was set in that city, you know?

[Broomstick]

Well, I hope the americans manage that as well, but I'm not one, despite how I might come off at times

Hm. Yeah, funny, your location is clearly stated yet somehow I thought you were American.

Good camouflage?

Bias.

People who shoot for recreation=American
Gun violence=American
American=gun owner
American=violent redneck

You're a good guy, PeZook, but I think you just uncovered a teeny bit of your own bias here. We all have such, and I completely understand how the media reinforces that sort of thing.

There's actually considerable overlap between Finnish gun laws and the gun laws in many parts of the US.

[PeZook]

I don't see anyone talking about speed-draws here.

And did I write "Americans in SD.net gun control threads"?

Do you have any evidence for this?

Edit: Looky what I found.

In supposedly peaceful and first-world Canada, traffic stops rank at number 5. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2 ... 54-eng.htm

Really? 1% of all homicides in the last five decades is "number 5"? Did you read your own source?

You further shoot yourself (heh) in the foot by showing data which says that in Canada, an average of 2.7 police officers are murdered on duty every year vs. 100+ for the US.

EDIT: Though of course I have to add that's the average ; The number of murdered cops in the US has, unsurprisingly, been dropping significantly in the US along with its crime rate, and per capita it's "only" about six times higher in the US.

You're a good guy, PeZook, but I think you just uncovered a teeny bit of your own bias here. We all have such, and I completely understand how the media reinforces that sort of thing.

Perhaps you're right. As I wrote before, laughing at American gun nuts is something I occasionally do to pass the time.

[General Zod]

And did I write "Americans in SD.net gun control threads"?

Please be more unhelpfully vague next time.

Really? 1% of all homicides in the last five decades is "number 5"? Did you read your own source?

Obviously I'm talking about cop deaths, not homicides in general. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

You further shoot yourself (heh) in the foot by showing data which says that in Canada, an average of 2.7 police officers are murdered on duty every year vs. 100+ for the US.

Canada doesn't have nearly the population density of the US either.

Perhaps you're right. As I wrote before, laughing at American gun nuts is something I occasionally do to pass the time.

I haven't fired a gun in nearly 20 years, but I'm pretty tired of idiots thinking that "getting rid of all guns everywhere" is a realistic solution.

[aerius]

In supposedly peaceful and first-world Canada, traffic stops rank at number 5. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2 ... 54-eng.htm

Really? 1% of all homicides in the last five decades is "number 5"? Did you read your own source?

It gets better. Note that #5 is actually "Traffic Violation". Routine traffic stops is way down at the very bottom of the list at 1% of all police deaths.

[Broomstick]

As I wrote before, laughing at American gun nuts is something I occasionally do to pass the time.

Well, I laugh at them, too, on occasion but perhaps less often than you, as they are closer neighbors to me than to you. Not so funny when they're down the block as opposed to halfway around the world.

[PeZook]

Please be more unhelpfully vague next time.

I wrote about Americans in general, because there is a non-insignificant amount of Americans who love their guns to the point of a ridiculous fetish and macho chest-beating. And they're pretty vocal, too, and politically active.

This includes gun nuts who do the aforementioned speed-draw boasting, or idiots who think having a bunch of pistols and AR-15s will let them fight off a Chinese invasion ; Geniuses who claim shooting at a body-armored psychopath in a crowded theater WHILE HAVING TEAR GAS IN THEIR EYES would've ended well, etc.

I did not mean specifically any SD.net poster, because SD.net is not America, or even a representative sample. In fact, AFAIK, most if not all SD.net gun guys ALSO laugh at the abovementioned idiots.

Precise enough for you?

Obviously I'm talking about cop deaths, not homicides in general. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Read your article again. Seriously.

Canada doesn't have nearly the population density of the US either.

Why yes, population density is what makes Canada have one cop murdered on duty in 2009 vs. 58 in the US...is this why Monaco is being torn apart by police homicide?

It's not even true, anyways ; Most of Canada is virtually uninhabited, so average population density is meaningless in this case (and in general, too ; Poland has higher population density than the US average, yet absurdly less police homicide. Same for Britain.)

I haven't fired a gun in nearly 20 years, but I'm pretty tired of idiots thinking that "getting rid of all guns everywhere" is a realistic solution.

Then you could read my post again (the one where I'm criticizing Jub for being unrealistic), perhaps?

[RogueIce]

In the US that's true, because your country is at war with itself. Everywhere else that's not Mexico or Somalia, a traffic stop is the most boring thing a cop can do, and cops don't talk with you while their partner nervously eyes the area with his hand around his holster.

While KS and SVPD are clearly the best ones to answer this question (and I'll PM them to ask if they'd chime in) I will go out on a limb here and say you have a rather mistaken perception of how US cops conduct their business. I'd be willing to bet that, for the vast majority of traffic stops, US police are not, in fact, nervously gripping the holsters of their guns expecting somebody to start shooting any second. And quite a number are initiated and concluded with only a single officer on scene, though this obviously varies; if two-officer units are the norm for that agency obviously another officer will be present, but I doubt he or she is nervously eyeing the area and so on.

And in reference to an earlier post, US police are quite capable of talking to people without their hands on their guns as well. While they certainly respect traffic stops for obvious reasons, you seem to be attributing way too much to it; and I'd be willing to bet even Polish police are not totally ignorant of officer safety when conducting their own pullovers. I'm pretty sure even European cops would be pretty cautious if they ran a vehicle's plates and it returns that those plates are for a four door sedan when they're clearly mounted on a SUV, for example.

[PeZook]

While KS and SVPD are clearly the best ones to answer this question (and I'll PM them to ask if they'd chime in) I will go out on a limb here and say you have a rather mistaken perception of how US cops conduct their business. I'd be willing to bet that, for the vast majority of traffic stops, US police are not, in fact, nervously gripping the holsters of their guns expecting somebody to start shooting any second. And quite a number are initiated and concluded with only a single officer on scene, though this obviously varies; if two-officer units are the norm for that agency obviously another officer will be present, but I doubt he or she is nervously eyeing the area and so on.

KS and SVPD have previously told people that during a traffic stop in the US you should keep your hands on the wheel, tell the officer what you're doing all the time, not open your doors, not use your cell phone etc etc etc because officers can be jumpy during traffic stops.

And there's a good reason for that because half of them get shot during routine traffic stops and I understand that, I am just amused that there's people who think this is a completely normal situation.

And in reference to an earlier post, US police are quite capable of talking to people without their hands on their guns as well. While they certainly respect traffic stops for obvious reasons, you seem to be attributing way too much to it; and I'd be willing to bet even Polish police are not totally ignorant of officer safety when conducting their own pullovers. I'm pretty sure even European cops would be pretty cautious if they ran a vehicle's plates and it returns that those plates are for a four door sedan when they're clearly mounted on a SUV, for example.

Well, yeah, if they just stopped me after a high-speed chase, or are looking for a car that looks like mine in connection with a crime, or run the plates and they come up weird they'd become more cautious. Duh.

But during ROUTINE stops, they're just bored.

[Ultonius]

we have Belfast on our doorstep, where most of the population is armed or has access

I think you're exaggerating here just a little. I live in Belfast, and I don't think I know anyone who owns a gun or who has any interest in doing so. While Northern Ireland's gun laws are less restrictive than those in the rest of the UK, firearms licences still have conditions detailing what the gun can be used for, such as sporting purposes, vermin control and personal protection. There's quite a useful article here, including this diagram:



As you can see, Belfast (the two areas marked A and B on the map), has fewer than 2,000 licensed gun owners. The population of Belfast (the city itself, rather than the metropolitan area) is over 250,000, which means that fewer than 1% are licensed gun owners.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I wrote about Americans in general, because there is a non-insignificant amount of Americans who love their guns to the point of a ridiculous fetish and macho chest-beating. And they're pretty vocal, too, and politically active.

My big problem with anti-gun control folks is how hideously they overreact to everything. If you are pro-control, in their eyes you are personally trying to pry their guns out of their hands, as opposed to say, making it more difficult to get assault rifles when you are just a random citizen who literally has no possible use for them. They seem broadly incapable of even imagining a scenario in which everyone doesn't own 3-4 guns.

I am not specifically targeting anybody here. There are plenty of anti-gun control people who are pretty rational, including on this site. But in general they just overreact to everything related to guns to such wild extremes (and this, too, is what you see in some of the discussions on this site). Even if you just make an innocent comment along the lines of wishing concealed carry wasn't allowed in public area X, suddenly they get in your face and screech, "OH SO YOU THINK ALL GUNS SHOULD BE MADE ILLEGAL HUH HUH DO YA?!?!?!"

[Darth Tedious]

It should be noted that the 2nd amendment doesn't specify firearms, but rather, "arms". Firearms just happen to be the most effective arms available, especially for the elderly, weak, and disabled. It's a corollary of the right to self defense, which is by itself is fairly useless without the means to defend yourself. And the right to self defense is undoubtedly a core human right.

Indeed, the (preexisting) right to bear arms was adopted from British law of the time.

It should also be noted that the Second Amendment codifies that right for the purpose of maintaining a "well regulated militia". Something (thankfully) most of the gun nuts have forgotten...

Well, I hope the americans manage that as well, but I'm not one, despite how I might come off at times

Hm. Yeah, funny, your location is clearly stated yet somehow I thought you were American.

Good camouflage?

I think it's the hat.

[Ziggy Stardust]

EDIT: Oops, not sure how this happened. Was trying to edit my last post and accidentally hit "quote" instead.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Define impossible to access, as has been pointed out in a previous thread, if you have ten thousand dollars you can buy the materials and tools to make your own gun so how exactly except via magic are you going to make a gun impossible to access in America.

If one started a nationwide seize program backed up by the will of a fascist police state you might get at best half of all American guns inside a decade. What about guns for example found in storage lockers when Uncle Earnie died and you found five rifles and three pistols Uncle Earnie put in storage when he had kids. What about guns smuggled back from WWI/WWII/Korea/Vietnam/Iraq 1&2 by soldiers which end up in the craziest of places. What about Canadian non-declared transfers when Steve from Toronto goes south to sell his guns at a gun show and takes back roads to avoid having to pay taxes on the sale. What about simple over the counter sales from American gun makers like sales of Colt pistols in Indiana where no records are deliberately kept because the company is psycho second amendment and keeps records only as long as the law requires with the least amount of information and has been doing so for sixty years now.

I'll try and find it but there was a Brady statistic floating around somewhere that less than ten percent to twenty percent of all guns in the US were legally registered.

I mean impossible to access, period. I wasn't saying it was realistic, but if you're going to say that something doesn't matter then you should be sure that what you're saying is actually true.

Also, if you made the ability to produce weapons the barrier to entry you're going to drive the costs up and make them harder to acquire. Not to mention that if an amendment can be made it can be stricken, so, theoretically, the second amendment shouldn't be a barrier to getting rid of weapons. Of course much of the US worships a stagnant document with blind devotion so that has no real chance of happening.

You sir, are an idiot. No. Really. I mean that.

Has banning heroin or cocaine done anything to drug use? No. It has made problems worse. Once you ban something, all you do is create black market demand. No effort in the world is going to stop smugglers, especially in a country with a gigantic land border and more sea and air ports than can ever possibly be adequately manned.

That is why ease of access has nothing to do with the homicide rate. If a person goes nutty and wants to kill someone they will find a way to do so. If they commit murder as part of a pattern of criminal behavior, they can readily go and get an illegal gun--and they can do so irrespective of the availability of legal ones because our government cannot check the inflow of said illegal guns because we have a gigantic border.

The position that no level of gun control will help seems equal crazy from my point of view. If the barrier to entry is set higher than it is currently, to the point where any criminal/future criminal who's serious about needing a gun has to deal with organized crime to get one, I think that will help.

They already DO deal with organized crime. Yes many illegal guns in this country are illegal because they are purchased in one state with lax gun laws, and sold illegally in a state with strict gun laws. However, all that creates is a lower-cost competitor for guns compared to international gun-smugglers coming in across the mexican border.

I can go out today and within an hour can obtain any drug I want, from heroin to cocaine to pot. Most of the heroine is produced in Afghanistan or Latin America, virtually all of the cocaine is produced in latin america. There is no barrier to entry. With enough money, I could probably arrange to obtain a small aircraft hanger full of cocaine--it is that easy to get. Without a within-nation competitor, the drug cartels will simply diversify their portfolio and use their pre-existing infrastructure to bring in guns. Hell, they will even Horizontally and Vertically integrate like they have with the cocaine trade.

Does this seem like a reasonable way to try and make things safer while we wait for the changes needed to cause a major drop in crime?

Most people do not randomly start shooting for no reason, or start shooting with no plan. Even the crazy people. Want to commit a crime but need to carry the gun? Do what criminals already do. Hide the gun. Is the gun a rifle? Disassemble the gun and re-assemble it in a secluded place like a public bathroom before you start shooting. Hell, carry the gun with the little safety stopper and then TAKE IT OUT when you want to kill people. Most guns are also really easy to load on short notice, just pop in the magazine/clip.

Case in point: Controlling for all the other variables I did before...

The legal ability to carry a gun in the open has no effect on the murder rate at all (P=.466). Seeing as any police officer who wants to can already check your papers etc if you are carrying a gun openly in open carry states, your proposal does... NOTHING.

Good question, some criminals are stupid.

Not that stupid, and most of the ones who are that stupid dont commit murder.

Odd, most of them seem to carry over, at least for functional nations. What makes the US such a special place that things that work elsewhere fail to work in the self proclaimed greatest nation on Earth?

Other developed countries do not have massive massive social problems that create crime. They also do not have a HUGE border with a third/second world continent and coastlines open to anyone with an inflatable zodiak. (Hyperbole=Yes)

Britain can actually control its guns (somewhat) because it is an island with a channel fairly inhospitable to smugglers, with limited accessible harbors (even to small craft), and the only nations nearby are themselves developed nations, all of which have far lower crime rates than the brits. They still, by the way, have a crime problem... driven by their own social problems. Their murders are just committed with different weapons, or using guns that were *gasp* smuggled in.

I hope so, too. The problem you're facing now is that while a 4.2 average is a nice reduction, some cities in the US are like freakin' war zones. The most dangeorus city in Poland has 2.8 murders per 100 000 inhabitants, while Detroit has IIRC 30+. When I saw that number I immediately thought of Robocop, because come on, man.

That is why my statistics include the percent of the population living in urban statistical areas. We have HUGE murder rates in our inner cities, because...well... yeah. Robocop.

Well, the real reason is that we have very limited social programs, and thus, multi-generational poverty. Said multi-generational poverty creates a complex feedback loop with life expectancy, risky status and mate seeking behavior (crime), and demographic responses, that create more poverty and cycle through over and over again. A twelve year old in detroit has a low chance of making it to the age of 20 compared to someone living in a nice suburb in upstate new york. That creates big differences in how they behave, when they first reproduce, and the strategies they use to find a mate (violence and risk as a means of obtaining social status). Their kids end up being poor because their parents were 13 and on it goes....

[TheFeniX]

My big problem with anti-gun control folks is how hideously they overreact to everything. If you are pro-control, in their eyes you are personally trying to pry their guns out of their hands, as opposed to say, making it more difficult to get assault rifles when you are just a random citizen who literally has no possible use for them. They seem broadly incapable of even imagining a scenario in which everyone doesn't own 3-4 guns.

This is why "gun nuts" don't generally respect the opinion of people who don't know what they fuck they're talking about. Commercial "assault rifles" are semi-automatic hunting rifles with bigger magazines (which isn't hard to get on a 4-5 round internal mag even with some POS like an SKS. All you have to do is modify an AK magazine on some of them).

You think you're making a reasoned argument when you say "people don't need (what I think) is an Assault Rifle," when you're really just saying "this gun looks scary, we should regulate it."

This is why The Brady Bill is laughed at so hard: it's because it was written by the ignorant to give the ignorant a warm fuzzy while accomplishing nothing. You know, like most gun control legislation outside actual sane shit like "keep weapons out of the hands of the violent and/or mentally ill."

Even if you just make an innocent comment along the lines of wishing concealed carry wasn't allowed in public area X, suddenly they get in your face and screech, "OH SO YOU THINK ALL GUNS SHOULD BE MADE ILLEGAL HUH HUH DO YA?!?!?!"

I've argued with a guy from London whose gun control premise was essentially "keeping a gun in your nightstand is a terrible idea because a criminal will (not may, he will) break into your home, sneak into your room, get your gun, and hold you hostage with it." Another argument I've heard was "gun owners should just be arrested and their guns taken away and they can be let go after an extensive psychological evaluation." This was because he honestly believed gun owners were mentally ill.

The best, the one that made me choke laughing? It was some girl (born and raised in Texas, I was told, and still don't believe it) whose basic argument was "wood stock = ok ; black plastic stock = terrorist gun!"

Now, I could make some kind of inference about the mental capacity of the "average" gun control proponent. Or I could just state the obvious "idiots are idiots no matter their opinions."

[Alyrium Denryle]

Now, I could make some kind of inference about the mental capacity of the "average" gun control proponent. Or I could just state the obvious "idiots are idiots no matter their opinions."

And this kids is why all my policy opinions (outside human rights issues) are built as follows:

Goal: maximize the quality of life for sapient beings
<<DATA+Up To Date Theory Regarding Human Behavior>>
--->
Conclusion

done.

[Darth Tedious]

My big problem with anti-gun control folks is how hideously they overreact to everything. If you are pro-control, in their eyes you are personally trying to pry their guns out of their hands, as opposed to say, making it more difficult to get assault rifles when you are just a random citizen who literally has no possible use for them. They seem broadly incapable of even imagining a scenario in which everyone doesn't own 3-4 guns.

This is why "gun nuts" don't generally respect the opinion of people who don't know what they fuck they're talking about. Commercial "assault rifles" are semi-automatic hunting rifles with bigger magazines (which isn't hard to get on a 4-5 round internal mag even with some POS like an SKS. All you have to do is modify an AK magazine on some of them).

You think you're making a reasoned argument when you say "people don't need (what I think) is an Assault Rifle," when you're really just saying "this gun looks scary, we should regulate it."

The even sillier side of the "average Joe doesn't need an assault rifle" argument is that the majority of gun-murders are done using handguns.

The best, the one that made me choke laughing? It was some girl (born and raised in Texas, I was told, and still don't believe it) whose basic argument was "wood stock = ok ; black plastic stock = terrorist gun!"

It would make sense for someone to say that (not that the statement makes sense in and of itself) if they had only ever dealt with/seen/handled wood-stocked weapons. It's the exact kind of ingrained 'gun prejudice' that was being discussed earlier ITT (ie- in Britain guns are for farmers and soldiers).

Perhaps a more sensible division would be "rifles/not easily concealed = okay ; pistols/easily concealed = not cool".

If people honestly believe that taking guns away will lower crime rates, perhaps they should focus more on the guns that are actually used to commit crimes.

[TheFeniX]

The even sillier side of the "average Joe doesn't need an assault rifle" argument is that the majority of gun-murders are done using handguns.

Well, yea. But you're actually starting to form a valid argument there. Stop it. EDIT: Just wanted to add right here, Australia is weird in this area because it's the one country I've found with more murders via "long-gun" than handgun. There may be more, but none that I know of.

It would make sense for someone to say that (not that the statement makes sense in and of itself) if they had only ever dealt with/seen/handled wood-stocked weapons. It's the exact kind of ingrained 'gun prejudice' that was being discussed earlier ITT (ie- in Britain guns are for farmers and soldiers).

That's kind of my point: you have a group of people who know next to nothing about firearms supporting a group of lawmakers who also know nothing about firearms or where crime comes from. I own a Beretta CX4. See that "sweep" that connects the grip/mag well to the stock? That exists solely so the gun can pass California's ban on "pistol grip rifles" (or something to that effect). It's saving lives right now because hacksaws don't exist and that's totally not the first modification many buyers make to the gun (I didn't, I'm weird like that). You find worthless laws like this (with no real enforcement anyway) everywhere.

But actually doing something worthwhile, like say, improve the detection and treatment of psychiatric disorders (or just improve reporting involuntary treatment to the authorities like what would have stopped the VA Tech shooter from buying a weapon. Maybe not stopping him, but slowing him down) requires doing actual research and attempting to fix the problem. That really interferes with the political process of "pass legislation for the sole purpose of placating soccer moms, then queue up smug grin while you take credit for the drop in violent crime that started 10 years earlier. Go Team Brady."

You don't find many fans of firearms arguing for stricter gun control because, at least in America, the laws are pretty good: keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill. You could find more than a few who think enforcement (and tracking) needs to be improved though, but that doesn't let a politician tie his name to a piece of paper, so it's much less popular.

Perhaps a more sensible division would be "rifles/not easily concealed = okay ; pistols/easily concealed = not cool".

Mossberg pump-shotguns are popular crime weapons because it's about the cheapest shotgun you can buy and criminals have figured out that that a hacksaw can be used to shorten a barrel. Now, doing so is illegal (at least in America) and can make the gun dangerous to fire, but they still do it.

If people honestly believe that taking guns away will lower crime rates, perhaps they should focus more on the guns that are actually used to commit crimes.

That starts another argument though: the one thing common across the most crime weapons is availability and price. The cheapest and more prolific guns will get the most use, no matter how many there are and how expensive they are. Right now it's the S&W .38 revolver because numerous companies have been making it for 100 years and it's dirt cheap. Many gangbangers show off their Glocks or high-priced pistols for cred, but generally avoid committing crimes with them because they aren't cheap and they don't want to toss them in the river.

So, essentially what you'd end up doing is banning guns for the poor, who are generally in the highest risk group to being victims of violent crime and arguably need the most access to cheap weaponry to defend themselves. You'd also have a hard time banning the .357/.38 revolver because it's a good gun for hunting in case you run into something like a bear or hog.

[Ziggy Stardust]

This is why "gun nuts" don't generally respect the opinion of people who don't know what they fuck they're talking about. Commercial "assault rifles" are semi-automatic hunting rifles with bigger magazines (which isn't hard to get on a 4-5 round internal mag even with some POS like an SKS. All you have to do is modify an AK magazine on some of them).
You think you're making a reasoned argument when you say "people don't need (what I think) is an Assault Rifle," when you're really just saying "this gun looks scary, we should regulate it."

Number 2 thing I hate about gun nuts: they get incredibly smug about terminology (largely to avoid addressing the point, like you did) and pretend that somehow wins an argument. Congratulations, I used the wrong phrase to refer to something, even though we all know exactly what I was talking about. Seriously, is it part of the 2nd amendment that all you people are legally obliged to act like assholes? I'm not even anti-gun, I fucking like guns, but something about the argument just makes people act incredibly childish.

You know, like most gun control legislation

This is exactly the attitude I was talking about. Just dismissing all opposition with appeals to motive instead of actually making a concerted effort to develop sensible legislation. It's childish.

I've argued with a guy from London whose gun control premise was essentially "keeping a gun in your nightstand is a terrible idea because a criminal will (not may, he will) break into your home, sneak into your room, get your gun, and hold you hostage with it." Another argument I've heard was "gun owners should just be arrested and their guns taken away and they can be let go after an extensive psychological evaluation." This was because he honestly believed gun owners were mentally ill.

The best, the one that made me choke laughing? It was some girl (born and raised in Texas, I was told, and still don't believe it) whose basic argument was "wood stock = ok ; black plastic stock = terrorist gun!"

Now, I could make some kind of inference about the mental capacity of the "average" gun control proponent. Or I could just state the obvious "idiots are idiots no matter their opinions."

I never said that anti-gun people were intelligent, and that there weren't really stupid and irrational people in that camp. There are. But just saying "Well, lots of people are assholes" doesn't mean I am any less wrong for pointing at a specific group of people and saying, "Those guys are assholes."

[Beowulf]

Words have meaning. If using jargon, be sure what the jargon actually means. "Assault rifle" has a well defined meaning in the firearms world, such that is essentially impossible to buy a new build one. "Assault weapon" is a made up term by gun grabbers to describe rifles that seem scary to them. I actually have no clue what you meant by "assault rifle", now.

[TheFeniX]

Number 2 thing I hate about gun nuts: they get incredibly smug about terminology (largely to avoid addressing the point, like you did) and pretend that somehow wins an argument. Congratulations, I used the wrong phrase to refer to something, even though we all know exactly what I was talking about. Seriously, is it part of the 2nd amendment that all you people are legally obliged to act like assholes? I'm not even anti-gun, I fucking like guns, but something about the argument just makes people act incredibly childish.

Are you fucking kidding me? This isn't "mag" vs "clip." Or two nerds arguing over the false terminology behind "phaser rifles." We're in a thread talking about Gun Control and you're giving me shit for using the right words? How long would you last in a discussion about cars if you couldn't differentiate between a manual and automatic transmission? Straight six vs V-6? We're in a gun control thread. Know your shit.

This is important because people call guns "assault rifles" when they fucking aren't. Then people with weak knees get the idea that 9-year-olds can just walk into Academy and pick-up full-auto M-16s for $50 and they flip the fuck out about it.

Further, I knew what you were talking about anyway because I've heard it a million fucking times. And I addressed your point by saying it was a dumb: AR-15s are functionally no different than any semi-automatic hunting rifle. They're even used as hunting rifles what with the fact that they're basically the Honda Civics of rifles, parts are plentiful. There was this same kind of backlash when "tacticool" mini-14's started showing up. Look at their models. No one gives a shit when you buy a wood-stock rifle. Polymer frame? Spring Stock? ASSAULT RIFLE!

This is exactly the attitude I was talking about. Just dismissing all opposition with appeals to motive instead of actually making a concerted effort to develop sensible legislation. It's childish.

Way to cut my post off mid-stream: "outside actual sane shit like "keep weapons out of the hands of the violent and/or mentally ill."" I actually support sane gun control legislation because (and I know this is going to sound crazy): deciding not to let violent felons and the mentally ill own guns is gun control. However, I've read enough gun control legislation in my short stint on this earth to realize most of it is bullshit feelgood crap that's a massive waste of taxpayer money.

And we have sensible legislation in America right now (and I'm not going into carry laws right now. I'm talking ownership).

I never said that anti-gun people were intelligent, and that there weren't really stupid and irrational people in that camp. There are. But just saying "Well, lots of people are assholes" doesn't mean I am any less wrong for pointing at a specific group of people and saying, "Those guys are assholes."

Wait, so it's cool if you pigeon-hole gun owners "in general" as smug assholes, but when I point out people like this exist on both sides, I'm trying to "prove you wrong?" Oh wait, gun control thread... carry on.

[Darth Tedious]

Well, yea. But you're actually starting to form a valid argument there. Stop it. EDIT: Just wanted to add right here, Australia is weird in this area because it's the one country I've found with more murders via "long-gun" than handgun. There may be more, but none that I know of.

Oh yeah, sorry. I should know better than to sling valid points in a gun control debate. Stupid of me.

I actually wasn't aware that we have more 'long-gun' killings here.
My Google-fu is letting me down- does this statistic still stand if we discount Port Arthur?
Now there's an example of piss-poor gun control...

But actually doing something worthwhile, like say, improve the detection and treatment of psychiatric disorders (or just improve reporting involuntary treatment to the authorities like what would have stopped the VA Tech shooter from buying a weapon. Maybe not stopping him, but slowing him down) requires doing actual research and attempting to fix the problem. That really interferes with the political process of "pass legislation for the sole purpose of placating soccer moms, then queue up smug grin while you take credit for the drop in violent crime that started 10 years earlier. Go Team Brady."

A lot of Australians could relate- the Howard Government scored loads of brownie points when they unilaterally cracked down on gun ownership here (pretty much banning anything that could hold more than two bullets at a time, IIRC), all while totally ignoring the fact that Martin Bryant shoud never have been licensed with the guns he had.

But as you say, the people who make these decisions know little to nothing about guns.

After the 2007 CBD shootings in Melbourne, the gun control lobbyists here went into a frenzy about how we need stricter gun laws- until it was pointed out that the shootings were committed with a Llama Minimax .40 (which was already illegal at the time).

Yes, enforcement of existing laws certainly is more important than the introduction of new ones.

Perhaps a more sensible division would be "rifles/not easily concealed = okay ; pistols/easily concealed = not cool".

Mossberg pump-shotguns are popular crime weapons because it's about the cheapest shotgun you can buy and criminals have figured out that that a hacksaw can be used to shorten a barrel. Now, doing so is illegal (at least in America) and can make the gun dangerous to fire, but they still do it.

Well, if the gun control lobbyists were sensible, they'd want shotguns to go right after pistols. They are the next most common type of gun used in crime, after all.
But, they just don't look as scary as 'assault weapons'.

If people honestly believe that taking guns away will lower crime rates, perhaps they should focus more on the guns that are actually used to commit crimes.

That starts another argument though: the one thing common across the most crime weapons is availability and price. The cheapest and more prolific guns will get the most use, no matter how many there are and how expensive they are. Right now it's the S&W .38 revolver because numerous companies have been making it for 100 years and it's dirt cheap. Many gangbangers show off their Glocks or high-priced pistols for cred, but generally avoid committing crimes with them because they aren't cheap and they don't want to toss them in the river.

So, essentially what you'd end up doing is banning guns for the poor, who are generally in the highest risk group to being victims of violent crime and arguably need the most access to cheap weaponry to defend themselves.

Conversly, the poor are also the most likely to commit a violent crime- so disarming the poor is somewhat a two-edged sword, at the very least. However, this is all pointless wishwash without addressing the underlying social issues. Two-third of homocides are commited with guns- the other third are done by other means (mostly sharp objects). It seems if someone really wants another person dead, they can actually achieve that effect without even using a gun?
I believe this is why Britain manages to have a higher stabbing rate than countries where guns are readily available.

You'd also have a hard time banning the .357/.38 revolver because it's a good gun for hunting in case you run into something like a bear or hog.

Now now, I think we've had enough reasonable points made here for today.

Let's do this right: I'll be scared of your pistol grip and you can get angry at me while I try and pry the gun out of your (still warm) hands.