Gun Control

[Lonestar]

I will still laugh at how much Americans masturbate to their guns, and how they make up all these action movie scenarios about shooting muggers, and how their police are arming up and talking to you with their hands on their holsters and expecting drivers at traffic stops to start shooting...but I hold no illusions that tightening the screws will help America as a society.

The group I shoot with the most is the local Pink Pistols(no smartasses, this isn't me coming out) group. Quite a few of them tell stories about how concealed carry probably either saved their life or a trip to the hospital. Even though the District has more legal protections against gays than Virginia, many of them moved out because a Certain Demographic really goes after the gays in DC and you can't conceal carry there.

I've heard a few from this group claim that a big reason why Tea Party rallies get by without much official molestation is that there's a lot of open-carry going on, and beat cops aren't going to die on that particular battlefield. It's like how the Black Panthers in the 60s and 70s open carried at civil rights rallies, so the peaceful protestors wouldn't get massacred by racist prick cops. Compare both of these to OWS, where the biggest protests are in states with strict gun control, and there is routine crackdowns.

Especially if it's done by banning bayonet lugs or fucking pistol grips...I mean, come on. Seriously.

Did you know in some states collapsable stocks are illegal? If you buy a AR with one(and most new ones are made with them, rather than static stock) you have to take it to a licensed armorer so the stock gets "pinned". That alone should tell you how fucking stupid some gun laws are.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

And then someone like Jub shows up, who takes all that suspicion and gives them a good reason for expecting it, because he really does think that.

Personally I question whether "overreacts" is the monopoly of pro-gun people. A lot of people have done it in the name of political activism over the years...

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.

They have been acted to in a childish way by others. When someone talks about "assault rifles" and bans any weapon with a bayonet attachment point (as if mass murderers really like using bayonets), it sounds incredibly ignorant and dumb and pointless.

A semi-automatic rifle is not made significantly more dangerous by having a bayonet lug, or a certain kind of grip to hold it with... and yet someone sat down and seriously wrote a law to ban those features from firearms.

Why should pro-gun people be less annoyed by this than I am when some bunch of ignorant fools block action on global warming or radioactive waste disposal because they don't understand science?

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.

Ziggy, this is the same thing you yourself are doing right now. You're dismissing people because they 'overreact' instead of asking why they overreact, and what they are reacting to.

[Channel72]

Ziggy, this is the same thing you yourself are doing right now. You're dismissing people because they 'overreact' instead of asking why they overreact, and what they are reacting to.

I don't know about Ziggy, but personally it doesn't so much bother me how pro-gun advocates "overreact" to anti-gun rhetoric; it just personally annoys me that pro-gun people talk about gun ownership in terms of their rights as opposed to their privileges. Owning a gun isn't necessary for most people. The state doesn't have to allow you to own a deadly weapon. You should, at the very least, prove to the state that you're responsible enough to own a firearm - and even then, you still don't need one in most cases. Very few people actually need a deadly weapon. I walk around in Newark, NJ twice a week, which has one of the highest murder rates in the country, and I don't own a firearm. Even if I did own a firearm, I wouldn't try and whip it out if someone else pulled a gun on me first, because I know I wouldn't stand a chance. So I just don't buy that most people in the suburbs or rural areas really need a personal firearm to protect themselves or their family. That's what the fucking police are for.

Yes, I know there are arguably legitimate cases where you might be able to justify a need for gun ownership, like people living in extremely remote areas, hi-risk retail locations (like 24-hour 7-11s in inner-cities) or perhaps with the elderly or the disabled. I also appreciate the impossible logistics of an absolute ban. But right now I'm not talking about logistics or policy - I'm talking about culture and attitude. Gun advocates should have to make the case that they need a gun, or at least that they're responsible enough to own one, NOT that they are entitled to own one just because it's their right or their hobby or whatever. This is a sick country indeed where so many people believe that gun ownership is more of a basic human right than fucking free healthcare.

[General Zod]

I don't know about Ziggy, but personally it doesn't so much bother me how pro-gun advocates "overreact" to anti-gun rhetoric; it just personally annoys me that pro-gun people talk about gun ownership in terms of their rights as opposed to their privileges.

What bothers me about anti-gun advocates is how they lump everyone into the gun-nut category if they support anything that's not a full scale ban of all weapons everywhere. Because there's apparently no acceptable middle ground whatsoever.

[Simon_Jester]

Ziggy, this is the same thing you yourself are doing right now. You're dismissing people because they 'overreact' instead of asking why they overreact, and what they are reacting to.

I don't know about Ziggy, but personally it doesn't so much bother me how pro-gun advocates "overreact" to anti-gun rhetoric; it just personally annoys me that pro-gun people talk about gun ownership in terms of their rights as opposed to their privileges. Owning a gun isn't necessary for most people. The state doesn't have to allow you to own a deadly weapon.

Actually, in the US, subject to reasonable limits, it does have to.

Which is kind of the point. It's in the Constitution, and it's not changing unless a majority of Americans actually do decide "shrug, guns are unnecessary and therefore should be banned." Which they won't, because huge numbers of Americans know perfectly well that it is not necessary to ban them.

I feel like some people here are trying to ban something because they don't see why it should be allowed. People who oppose the bans argue that it should not be banned, unless someone can prove it shouldn't be allowed.

Why should we be "not allowed" to have firearms unless they're needed for urgent self-defense? Why is the average citizen's personal judgment not enough?

Gun advocates should have to make the case that they need a gun, or at least that they're responsible enough to own one, NOT that they are entitled to own one just because it's their right or their hobby or whatever. This is a sick country indeed where so many people believe that gun ownership is more of a basic human right than fucking free healthcare.

Health care is a totally separate issue- that wasn't considered a right, anywhere in the world, a hundred years ago. We're changing our minds, some people aren't caught up, but it's beside the point.

See, the right to carry weapons has been part of "first-class" citizenship for about as long as civilization has even existed. Not every free citizen carried a weapon, or wanted to, or needed to- but historically, not being allowed to carry a weapon was a sign of being one of the peasants. Someone who needed to be kept physically helpless, for fear they would try to topple a social order slanted against them, or attack their 'betters.'

Does this mean banning weapons turns free people into peasants? I wouldn't say that, I don't think that. But it's not as if this is something people just arbitrarily decided to care about last week. The question of "who is allowed to go armed, and who is not?" has been with us for a long time.

If we had revolutionary movements of anything like the strength of 19th century politics, gun proliferation would probably turn into a leftist issue because of that. And it'd be about the masses' right to rebel against the power structure, instead of law-abiding petit-bourgeoisie wanting to hold on to weapons as a symbol of their first-class citizenship.

[Jub]

Why should we be "not allowed" to have firearms unless they're needed for urgent self-defense? Why is the average citizen's personal judgment not enough?

Simon, you've said this to me and now I must say it back, you're sounding like an idiot.

Let me replace gun, with tank, or bomb, or nerve agent. All of those are as useless and dangerous as a gun in the hands of your average person.

See, the right to carry weapons has been part of "first-class" citizenship for about as long as civilization has even existed. Not every free citizen carried a weapon, or wanted to, or needed to- but historically, not being allowed to carry a weapon was a sign of being one of the peasants. Someone who needed to be kept physically helpless, for fear they would try to topple a social order slanted against them, or attack their 'betters.'

It's been a right to do many other things in history and slowly we've abolished many of those in recent years. I expected better of you than an appeal to history and challenges to others to prove that you don't need a gun. It's like trying to disprove god, a point is raised and is met with many buts and ifs.

[Lonestar]

Errr, I'd say that everyone has a right to self defense, which gun ownership is ofren a prerequisite of.

BTW, in the Virginia CC permit class you're told the DA weighs things like "are you bigger and stronger than the attacker" when looking at a CC holder who shoots someone. It's why some people made a big deal out Zimmerman being bigger than scrawny Trayvon Martin. You can use a firearm in self defense within reasonable limits.

[PeZook]

Simon, you've said this to me and now I must say it back, you're sounding like an idiot.

Let me replace gun, with tank, or bomb, or nerve agent. All of those are as useless and dangerous as a gun in the hands of your average person.

What about bows, crossbows, swords? All of these are useful for nothing but killing, too!

Seeing as the statistics are clear, and gun laws in the US do not impact violent crime rates significantly one way or another, what is the rationale to try and spend political capital passing heavy-handed legislation which will anger major portions of the population, jeopardizing all the other, more worthwhile initiatives in the process?

If your goal is to save lives, you're not accomplishing it, because the US is awash with guns anyways. You'd have to do heavy handed things like mass confiscations and destruction which would cost money and effort for the police force, and the supreme court would rule the law unconstituional within two months anyways, so...

[Jub]

Simon, you've said this to me and now I must say it back, you're sounding like an idiot.

Let me replace gun, with tank, or bomb, or nerve agent. All of those are as useless and dangerous as a gun in the hands of your average person.

What about bows, crossbows, swords? All of these are useful for nothing but killing, too!

Seeing as the statistics are clear, and gun laws in the US do not impact violent crime rates significantly one way or another, what is the rationale to try and spend political capital passing heavy-handed legislation which will anger major portions of the population, jeopardizing all the other, more worthwhile initiatives in the process?

If your goal is to save lives, you're not accomplishing it, because the US is awash with guns anyways. You'd have to do heavy handed things like mass confiscations and destruction which would cost money and effort for the police force, and the supreme court would rule the law unconstituional within two months anyways, so...

How is a gun different than a small bomb? Or a tank? Or even a crossbow? Each is more than able to kill people and you can make the same arguments for why people shouldn't have them. In the case of a bomb, the information is online so it's impossible to remove that information from the hands of the public, you could legitimately just enjoy blowing up stumps and things with them, and I'm sure chucking pipe bombs at criminals would work fine for self defense. So why can't I walk around with a concealed pipe bomb as long as I register?

The gun control stats are meaningless with so many unregistered guns floating around and the gun laws still being pretty lax even in the harshest US states. The country should introduce duty to retreat laws like sensible countries have and realize that it isn't the wild west anymore.

[Lonestar]

The gun control stats are meaningless with so many unregistered guns floating around and the gun laws still being pretty lax even in the harshest US states. The country should introduce duty to retreat laws like sensible countries have and realize that it isn't the wild west anymore.

Gun laws in some US States are harsher than in Canada or Finland.

And, as I said in my response earlier, in VA at least they tell you in the class you have to get a CC permit that CC isn't a free license to kill, even with "stand your grown" or Castle Doctrine laws. The DA might go after you if you're physically bigger than the attacker, or clearly in better physical shape.

Hell, you can't even show a mugger a weapon in an attempt to scare him off. Brandishing a weapon is a felony in Virginia.

[PeZook]

How is a gun different than a small bomb? Or a tank? Or even a crossbow? Each is more than able to kill people and you can make the same arguments for why people shouldn't have them. In the case of a bomb, the information is online so it's impossible to remove that information from the hands of the public, you could legitimately just enjoy blowing up stumps and things with them, and I'm sure chucking pipe bombs at criminals would work fine for self defense. So why can't I walk around with a concealed pipe bomb as long as I register?

You're seriously asking how explosives and self-propelled armored vehicles are different from small arms?

For one, you can't bring down a building with a pistol

The gun control stats are meaningless with so many unregistered guns floating around and the gun laws still being pretty lax even in the harshest US states. The country should introduce duty to retreat laws like sensible countries have and realize that it isn't the wild west anymore.

It's great how you defeat your own argument without realizing it: first you say gun control stats are meaningless because there's so many unregistered guns (ie. legislation does nothing to curb the actual amount of guns use in crime in America), and then that you should use legislation unrelated to gun control (duty to retreat) to deal with the problem

It's almost like you realize the problem, but can't admit it

[Jub]

You're seriously asking how explosives and self-propelled armored vehicles are different from small arms?

For one, you can't bring down a building with a pistol.

You can still kill a large number of people with a pistol and the explosive has the added utility of removing unwanted stumps and rocks.

It's great how you defeat your own argument without realizing it: first you say gun control stats are meaningless because there's so many unregistered guns (ie. legislation does nothing to curb the actual amount of guns in use in America), and then that you should use legislation unrelated to gun control (duty to retreat) to deal with the problem

It's almost like you realize the problem, but can't admit it

The issue is that America as a whole doesn't consider this an issue. The fact that there are loads of unregistered guns is a thing that people shrug at. Doesn't that seem an odd stance to take when it comes to things that can kill you?

Gun laws in some US States are harsher than in Canada or Finland.

And, as I said in my response earlier, in VA at least they tell you in the class you have to get a CC permit that CC isn't a free license to kill, even with "stand your grown" or Castle Doctrine laws. The DA might go after you if you're physically bigger than the attacker, or clearly in better physical shape.

Hell, you can't even show a mugger a weapon in an attempt to scare him off. Brandishing a weapon is a felony in Virginia.

I was wrong on the legislation aspect, but I bet even in those areas with vastly tougher laws you can find a gun easier than you could in Canada.

[PeZook]

You can still kill a large number of people with a pistol and the explosive has the added utility of removing unwanted stumps and rocks.

I guess that utility is why explosives are actually legal everywhere in the world. You can't conceal carry boxes of explosives around because of the ease with which you can then wire buildings to explode and kill HUNDREDS of people, damage important infrastructure and so on.

The issue is that America as a whole doesn't consider this an issue. The fact that there are loads of unregistered guns is a thing that people shrug at. Doesn't that seem an odd stance to take when it comes to things that can kill you?

I find American gun culture to be equal parts silly (GUNS WILL PROTECT US FROM TYRANNY!!!) and scary (I need a gun because I could get murdered in the streets at any time!), although the latter is justified in some places in America because these PLACES are scary, too.

This doesn't mean "Let's ban all guns in America!" will solve any of these problems. And because it won't, then it's not justified to jepoardize everything else you might want to do by pissing off gun owners, because your epic fight to get guns banned will get you voted out of office. It would be like (not quite, but still) banning hamburgers because they're bad for you.

I was wrong on the legislation aspect, but I bet even in those areas with vastly tougher laws you can find a gun easier than you could in Canada.

And the entire point I'm making is that this reality will not change because you ban all guns ; You'd have to take them out of circulation and destroy them. It's much more worthwhile to spend that money on enforcing existing gun laws (and probably cleaning them up a bit, creating a single federal standard, databases for background checks, mental health screening etc.) where you have a chance that people will actually comply.

[PeZook]

Now, if it was feasible and (relatively) easy to somehow magically reduce gun sales and the sheer number of firearms in circulation in the US, I'd support it as ONE of the measures to reduce fatalities from violent crime (yeah, yeah, guns are not magic death rays etc. ; It's still easier to kill with guns than other weapons ; both because they act at range, and because of psychological factors) while you tackle the more general problem of America's violence issues.

Not that my opinion matters, other than maybe convincing American voters one way or another

[Dark Hellion]

I find American gun culture to be equal parts silly (GUNS WILL PROTECT US FROM TYRANNY!!!) and scary (I need a gun because I could get murdered in the streets at any time!), although the latter is justified in some places in America because these PLACES are scary, too.

I just want to point out that this is only one gun culture but it is the most widely known because it is the most visible. There are also gun cultures built around hunting (which is by far the one I have encountered the most in my life), a shooters culture that cares about the performance of guns or unusual firing characteristics and a collectors culture that cares about the artistry of the guns.

I get the impression that there is a misconception among some that the U.S. is like the wild west where heavily armed people wander around everywhere. I think most people rationally realize this isn't true but the tone of some posts seems to imply that there is an unconscious assumption of this that colors some discussion.

[Lonestar]

I was wrong on the legislation aspect, but I bet even in those areas with vastly tougher laws you can find a gun easier than you could in Canada.

Err, perhaps it's easier to find a gun, but it is much, much harder to find specific types of guns or guns with certain capabilities. We're talking about this in The Mess and some of our non-American members are raising eyebrows at shit that's perfectly legal in Canada or some European countries, but banned in California(or MA or NY).

[PeZook]

I just want to point out that this is only one gun culture but it is the most widely known because it is the most visible. There are also gun cultures built around hunting (which is by far the one I have encountered the most in my life), a shooters culture that cares about the performance of guns or unusual firing characteristics and a collectors culture that cares about the artistry of the guns.

True, but in political debate the language isn't one of desirable outcomes,cost/benefit or anything like that - the gun pundits always ramble about liberty and the Holy Constipitution. Even the more reasonable pro-gun guys (IE. I'm a hunter/farmer/live an hour away from the nearest precinct and need my rifle) usually act as if any discussion about gun control means the prospect of taking them all away.

Of course the other side all too often equates guns with America's violence problem, which is pretty clearly not the case.

I get the impression that there is a misconception among some that the U.S. is like the wild west where heavily armed people wander around everywhere. I think most people rationally realize this isn't true but the tone of some posts seems to imply that there is an unconscious assumption of this that colors some discussion.

They have concealed carry, a very high amount of guns in circulation and a high murder rate. They ARE a bit like the wild west

[Lonestar]

True, but in political debate the language isn't one of desirable outcomes,cost/benefit or anything like that - the gun pundits always ramble about liberty and the Holy Constipitution. Even the more reasonable pro-gun guys (IE. I'm a hunter/farmer/live an hour away from the nearest precinct and need my rifle) usually act as if any discussion about gun control means the prospect of taking them all away.

That's because that has happened in NYC and New Orleans. Police took away legally registered firearms, even if there wasn't a ban in affect. Like, showed up for the express purpose of taking them away.

It isn't as widespread as some gun nuts would have you believe, but it happens.

[Broomstick]

Simon, you've said this to me and now I must say it back, you're sounding like an idiot.

Let me replace gun, with tank, or bomb, or nerve agent. All of those are as useless and dangerous as a gun in the hands of your average person.

No, Jub, YOU are sounding like an idiot.

In the US it actually is legal for a private party to own a tank. There are some rules involved, and of course you are legally liable for any damage, maiming, or death that arises from said ownership... just like there are rules to owning a gun and you are likewise liable for any negative outcome of owning/using it.

Bomb? What you think fireworks are? Also, people like farmers and construction companies have legitimate uses of explosives and are able to purchase them (such purchases are tracked, just as legal guns are registered). Nerve agents are used for vermin control - what do you think are in most insecticides? Oh, and I use poison around my residence for rodent control.

In other words, these things DO have legitimate purposes for law-abiding citizens. You are just not used to thinking of a can of bug spray as a "nerve agent" even though that's exactly what it is.

[His Divine Shadow]

Is owning a tank as long as you take of the gun something that you can't do elsewhere? I do know in the past private collectors in Finland could own tanks and artillery. Not sure if they had to be deactivated or not.

[Mr Bean]

Is owning a tank as long as you take of the gun something that you can't do elsewhere? I do know in the past private collectors in Finland could own tanks and artillery. Not sure if they had to be deactivated or not.

Indiana has the best laws in this regard, in other states if you want to own a T-72 it can vary from "It can't do anything but drive forward and back" to "The barrel must be spiked and the turret loader removed". However in Indiana if you want a T-72 the only two things you have to do is register it as a heavy vehicle and cap the barrel which you pay for and do yourself. And these are not permanent caps, if you want a simple two inch concrete block and O ring block that's fine as is a complete steel barrel plug. It's on you to do it and you only need one inspector to look at and okay it.

The Indiana War Museum (The one in Vinciness not the one in the Capital) as I've mentioned several times before is the best example of what a wealthy person can do with the lack armored vehicle laws.

[Beowulf]

How is a gun different than a small bomb? Or a tank? Or even a crossbow? Each is more than able to kill people and you can make the same arguments for why people shouldn't have them. In the case of a bomb, the information is online so it's impossible to remove that information from the hands of the public, you could legitimately just enjoy blowing up stumps and things with them, and I'm sure chucking pipe bombs at criminals would work fine for self defense. So why can't I walk around with a concealed pipe bomb as long as I register?

The gun control stats are meaningless with so many unregistered guns floating around and the gun laws still being pretty lax even in the harshest US states. The country should introduce duty to retreat laws like sensible countries have and realize that it isn't the wild west anymore.

A small bomb is non discriminatory on where it flings the shrapnel. Anyone who uses a small bomb for self defense shows a depraved indifference to life, as you can't be sure the shrapnel won't it an innocent bystander. A gun only shoots a bullet where the gun is pointing. You can control where the bullets go. You moron.

And duty to retreat laws used to be in effect in some states in the US. They got taken off the books and replaced by castle doctrine laws, and stand your ground laws, because moron prosecutors were charging people when they only had a theoretical ability to retreat. "What, you could have escaped that blind alleyway by climbing the drain pipe." or "You had a duty to retreat from your third floor bedroom. You could have jumped out the window."

Ziggy, this is the same thing you yourself are doing right now. You're dismissing people because they 'overreact' instead of asking why they overreact, and what they are reacting to.

I don't know about Ziggy, but personally it doesn't so much bother me how pro-gun advocates "overreact" to anti-gun rhetoric; it just personally annoys me that pro-gun people talk about gun ownership in terms of their rights as opposed to their privileges. Owning a gun isn't necessary for most people. The state doesn't have to allow you to own a deadly weapon. You should, at the very least, prove to the state that you're responsible enough to own a firearm - and even then, you still don't need one in most cases. Very few people actually need a deadly weapon. I walk around in Newark, NJ twice a week, which has one of the highest murder rates in the country, and I don't own a firearm. Even if I did own a firearm, I wouldn't try and whip it out if someone else pulled a gun on me first, because I know I wouldn't stand a chance. So I just don't buy that most people in the suburbs or rural areas really need a personal firearm to protect themselves or their family. That's what the fucking police are for.

The right to arms is a corollary of the right to self defense. You obviously don't believe in the latter. The police do not exist to protect you. They exist to catch bad guys. If you have a valid restraining order against someone, which they violate, and you call the cops, they do not have any responsibility to show up. If the police are not bound to protect you, and you do not have a right to self defense, then you might as well lie back and enjoy the ass raping you're getting.

[Channel72]

I feel like some people here are trying to ban something because they don't see why it should be allowed. People who oppose the bans argue that it should not be banned, unless someone can prove it shouldn't be allowed.

Why should we be "not allowed" to have firearms unless they're needed for urgent self-defense? Why is the average citizen's personal judgment not enough?

I guess this question is really the heart of the matter - and unfortunately it's probably too subjective to meaningfully resolve. I fall into the camp of "shouldn't be allowed unless there's an urgent need."

You see, certain devices and substances that exist carry with them a high potential to cause harm or injury. Therefore, from an a priori standpoint, it would be in the interest of the common good to have a governing body which regulates these devices and substances to vary degrees. And of course, the state does recognize that certain devices or substances are potentially harmful, and need to be regulated or controlled. It's the reason fireworks or certain hazardous chemicals are regulated in many states. It's the reason you're not allowed to bring firearms onto an airplane or into many government buildings. After we at least acknowledge the fact that it's beneficial for the government to step in and regulate harmful devices or substances, everything else becomes a debate over degrees. Should private citizens be allowed to own/require a license to carry carving knives? Spears? Muskets? Pistols? Nerve gas? Thermal detonators?

But my point is, gun advocates often bring a certain unhelpful attitude to the debate as a result of the strong pro-gun culture forged in America. Gun advocates often seem to start off with a default stance of "it's an absolute inalienable human right for me to carry a firearm." And this strikes me as absolutely ridiculous, considering the prima facie fact that guns are extremely dangerous devices.

See, the right to carry weapons has been part of "first-class" citizenship for about as long as civilization has even existed. Not every free citizen carried a weapon, or wanted to, or needed to- but historically, not being allowed to carry a weapon was a sign of being one of the peasants. Someone who needed to be kept physically helpless, for fear they would try to topple a social order slanted against them, or attack their 'betters.'

And yet residents of G8 countries and elsewhere currently live in a society where the government imposes many restrictions and regulations on various devices and harmful substances in the interest of public safety. This isn't the god damn Wild West anymore. So any discussion about gun control should begin by acknowledging the premise that guns are potentially dangerous devices that need to be regulated. They should not be treated as some sort of basic human right anymore.

[General Zod]

You see, certain devices and substances that exist carry with them a high potential to cause harm or injury. Therefore, from an a priori standpoint, it would be in the interest of the common good to have a governing body which regulates these devices and substances to vary degrees. And of course, the state does recognize that certain devices or substances are potentially harmful, and need to be regulated or controlled. It's the reason fireworks or certain hazardous chemicals are regulated in many states. It's the reason you're not allowed to bring firearms onto an airplane or into many government buildings. After we at least acknowledge the fact that it's beneficial for the government to step in and regulate harmful devices or substances, everything else becomes a debate over degrees. Should private citizens be allowed to own/require a license to carry carving knives? Spears? Muskets? Pistols? Nerve gas? Thermal detonators?

But my point is, gun advocates often bring a certain unhelpful attitude to the debate as a result of the strong pro-gun culture forged in America. Gun advocates often seem to start off with a default stance of "it's an absolute inalienable human right for me to carry a firearm." And this strikes me as absolutely ridiculous, considering the prima facie fact that guns are extremely dangerous devices.

Most people don't actually have a problem with meaningful, useful regulation. But the attitude that "if we ban guns all the bad stuff will go away" is no more helpful. Because no crime, poverty or murder existed before guns *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

[Channel72]

Most people don't actually have a problem with meaningful, useful regulation. But the attitude that "if we ban guns all the bad stuff will go away" is no more helpful. Because no crime, poverty or murder existed before guns *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

The perception is that a lot of gun-rights advocates in the US do have a problem with any regulation beyond the most basic background checks.

Yeah, banning guns won't solve the crime problem in the US. The data posted by Alyrium earlier indicates gun restrictions don't do anything to reduce crime anyway. However, I wonder how much of that ineffectiveness is due to the pre-existing surplus of guns circulating around the US?

Regardless, if we're being realistic, the only long term solution to violent crime is through increased opportunity/social mobility. But I think we need to separate the issue of gun control from the issue of reducing violent crime. To me, the debate over gun-control is more a debate about the role government should play in regulating hazardous devices, rather than a solution to reducing inner-city violence.