|
Welcome to Gunchat MKII*. Talk about guns, gun related legislation, scholarly articles on firearms, firearm laws around the world, 3d printed firearms and improvised firearms somebody made out of an old prosthetic leg.  Because of the absolute dogshit posting of the previous thread probations in this thread will start at a day and go up from there. You have been warned. The forum is, after all, 'Debate & Discussion', not 'Fishmech and Whinge'.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
Guns rule, arm the working class
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Reserved in case it's needed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Admiral Bosch posted:Guns rule, arm the working class
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
In my opinion, guns are good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Jehde posted:In my opinion, guns are good. In my opinion, your opinion is wrong, friend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Guns are a pointless extravagance for the average person and their insane profusion throughout America mostly comes down to scared white people, with the main result being much higher levels of violent crime in America compared to similar countries that have significantly tighter restrictions on owning firearms even taking into account things like income inequality and poverty. Massive civilian gun ownership isn't even much use for the prospective definitely going to happen and definitely going to be Socialist revolution that I keep reading about here. Thread done. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Aug 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
I think it would only be sporting if animals had guns, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Guns are really fun to shoot at pop cans, a useful tool for farmers to destroy pests and euthanize sick animals. The vast majority of violent gun crime is committed by a small minority of owners, and most of them are committed with non legally owned firearms. I think Canada has a pretty good model for gun control , but more could be done to limit firearms to at risk individuals and more enforcement of bans post domestic violence. vincentpricesboner fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Aug 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
US Senate candidate proposes arming homeless people with shotgunsquote:A Michigan candidate for US Senate has proposed arming homeless people with pump-action shotguns in an effort to reduce crime. Still hilarious
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Kommienzuspadt posted:US Senate candidate proposes arming homeless people with shotguns Have you never seen the documentary "Hobo with a Shotgun"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
SpartanIvy posted:Have you never seen the documentary "Hobo with a Shotgun"? Oh believe me, it was the first thing that sprang to mind
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
A million years ago, back in 2015 when the idea of President Donald J. Trump brought smirks to our faces and when discussing policy still mattered, I had a great time advocating sensible gun control proposals in Gunchat threads. I know now that nothing matters, that discussion is probably useless and that I am probably as insufferably polarized as gun nuts, and I spend my time shitposting. But there are times where I long for a taste of that long-lost atmosphere of constructive discussion. So here I am, baring my soul to y'all and offering a meaty post I carefully crafted over several iterations back in 2015. It is full of serious and realistic ideas and concrete policy, that I believe are worth debating. The issue. Today is Wednesday, August 1st 2018. Some 80 people have perished or will perish in the United States of America beause of guns today. There have been a couple shootings on street corners, a bunch of suicides with guns, a few gun-related accidents resulting in death today, and some cops shooting people. A good fraction got killed by people they knew and who had no criminal record. Owning a gun was actually the number 1 cause of death for these people because the injuries that led to most of their deaths were self-inflicted, and some were shot by their own guns. Reminder as well that somewhere around 630 guns were stolen today from their legal owners because of improper storage, increasing the amount of illegal guns in circulation. This contributes to crime in general. If anyone has got good statistics for assaults and/or brandishing, that would own as well. Therefore the reason for gun control isn't simply to reduce the number of mass shootings. It's also not personal. It's not "you might do something bad", it's "statistically, when given unrestricted access to this tool, people have a tendency to do something bad way more often". Also, there's a reason why "we never thought he could do anything like this" is a staple of the commentary of gun-related tragedies. That's why our response shouldn't simply be "better background checks", or "more resources in mental health". All the people who are mentally unstable are not necessarily violent, and all the people who are violent are not necessarily mentally unstable. We need to reduce the amount of guns in circulation, in particular the amount of illegal guns, we need to reduce the recourse to guns in daily life, and we need to ensure that people who own guns keep them safe, out of reach, and as inoffesive as they can. What is to be done. It is a given that the 2nd Amendment in no way precludes intelligent regulation of guns, selective bans, and the registration of gun owners, all of which would contribute to a peaceful society and the gradual elimination of this ghastly gun culture. Here is the kind of intelligent gun control I'm suggesting. It's based on a shall-issue policy, but with stringent controls. To own most guns, you would first need a license for them - and it's one license per gun. Such a license can only be obtained if you show proof of regular attendance at a range, with specific classes, get a positive opinion from the gun range manager as well as one from a doctor, and either own a safe or store your gun at the range. Licenses have to be renewed regularly, maybe every five years. It would be accompanied by a thorough background check consisting in your criminal record (with a focus on violent offenses), ongoing legal procedures, existence of restraining orders, and mental health, all of this reviewed by a human being and not automated. The aim of this policy is to reduce the availability of guns, while not making them illegal at all and allowing the very same people who are exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to keep on exercising them. These policy ideas are largely inspired by the current French laws surrounding the ownership of guns, laws that are permissive enough for 130 000 French people to be at least somewhat regular shooters in ranges - and not counting hunters for whom the legislation is even less strict. The sale of guns would be much more regulated as well. It would honestly be far safer to ban private sales of guns (and extremely constitutional of course), but I could see private individuals selling guns to other private individuals, but only if the buyer can present a license for the gun they want to buy - a license that is not currently being used for another gun. Same thing for gifts. This goes hand in hand with the licensing thing: that way, guns would be individually tracked, and the responsibility for what happens with said gun would also rest on its owner. If the gun is used in a crime, a murder, or a suicide, the owner would be liable, including if the gun has been stolen. I believe that this kind of policy would do wonders to persuade gun owners to be responsible with their guns and store them properly, either in their safe or free of charge at their range. This would reduce the amount of guns that circulate illegally, reduce gun theft, and reduce crime in general. It would also reduce the amount of accidents and suicides. A large-scale gun exchange and buyback policy would also complement these reforms, specifically aimed at eliminating untracked guns. This is how it would work - once the law is passed, people have several years (maybe 3 ? 5?) to either turn in their gun, or get a license and exchange their unmarked, unlicensed and untracked gun for a tagged one, or to get it tagged. After the set date, owning an gun without the corresponding license would be grounds for confiscation, for the revocation of all licenses and for a notice on the background check system. This is to adapt the system to the current situation, where millions of guns are in circulation and we have no idea where they are. All this would be overseen by the ATF, probably, or some ad hoc agency. I could add more policies, but to be honest, I don't really care about selective gun bans, or even supressors and magazine limits and such. I think that some guns ought to be more monitored than others, but I'm not going to focus on that and on gadgets if I get the rest. As long as it's on the license, I'm fine with it. Have your AR-15, have your cool-rear end handgun with the extra shooty bits, the scope, the supressor, the lasers. That way we won't get sidetracked by considerations such as "these mag limits are arbitrary!". There would be exceptions of course. Guns used for hunting or skeet shooting, a category that should be well-defined (for example, probably based on the number of bullets they can fire before needing a reload, BUT I AM NOT AN EXPERT and I welcome guns specialists' opinions on how we could define such a category for such guns), would only require a hunting permit. Toy guns wouldn't need anything. Neither would antiques if they're disabled. Here is an excellent point made by size1one about gun training, the sort of thing I'd like to see in my own requirements, and personal safety tips: size1one posted:re: training requirements. Frequently made points, and the corresponding rebuttals: PCOS Bill posted:Point is the guns didn't do it, people did. Have a chart:  And have a link to a rather recent study. More specifically, a pretty self-explanatory table. So at any rate - the presence of guns statistically does kill people. Or, to be more precise, it is the unmistakeable cause of surmortality. Whether it be suicide or homicide. The presence of guns in a home is actually not a good idea for personal safety or the safety of loved ones. LeJackal posted:Right, its the fact that all all your ideas as proposed would screw over racial minorities makes them racist. That what justifications you have for them are thinly veiled paternalist racism makes them racist. I can't believe that anyone would prefer the status quo over gun regulation, as far as minorities are concerned. Minorities are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of gun violence, especially black and mixed-race people. Actual gun control would improve this situation by a lot. The policies I support do not screw over minorities. People who wish to buy guns because they believe it would make them safer, whether they are right or not, still have the ability to purchase guns. It make take more time, it may cost more money. But buying a gun is already an expense, and owning a gun is a serious responsibility, so people should take very good care of their guns. This is what the increased cost represents. There is also the fact that racial minorities in general tend to express a preference for gun control, compared to the rest of the population. Do not presume to talk for them - that is what is paternalistic and kinda racist. Don't use other people as a prop. Some people like to point out that gun control efforts in the past have specifically been passed in order to control minority ownership of guns. While that wouldn't come as a surprise to me, given the history of the US, I'd nonetheless like to read more about this. I also offer this as a rebuttal: the GI bill was horribly racist and helped cement segregation in the 40's and 50's. This does not mean that current VA benefits are racist. It is possible to have non racist gun control, and while it is good that people are vigilant about this, let's not forbid ourselves from trying to elaborate gun control policies that wouldn't hurt minorities. Dead Reckoning posted:I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but the standards for government restriction on a fundamental right are fairly well established under the concept of strict scrutiny: there must be a compelling interest, and the law must be both narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of accomplishing the interest. Banning all guns unsuitable for personal defense probably wouldn't infringe on the 2nd amendment, but is unlikely to pass even the lower rational basis standard. May issue policies definitely would fail on all counts. Registration would likely pass muster, but there really isn't any good reason for it. I dispute that gun regulation would have to pass strict scrutiny, since the right to bear arms wouldn't be significantly abridged. Certainly not by registration, most likely not by even a severe shall-issue rule or a selective ban, maybe by a may-issue rule depending on the conditions set. In fact, I know of no Supreme Court case where strict scrutiny was applied to 2nd Amendment matters. Even if it were, and while I'm not a constitutional scholar, I wager that gun control (maybe not selective bans) would pass compelling interest ("not allow weapons to fall in the hands of people who, by constant jurisprudence for decades, have not had legal access to guns", and to people who might fall into that category). The narrow tailoring requirement would probably depend on the way the law is written, and there are certainly ways to tailor the law in such a way that it would pass - and if it is argued that simple registration is too weak to have any effect, I'm pretty sure that the next reasonable step is shall-issue. All in all I think it is safe to say that the true answer to that question can only be given by the Supreme Court, and we're both crafting our theories in a way that agrees with us. I say, let us try, and see what happens if and when the law is challenged. So that's it. A seriouspost by flowers of Algeria. What do you think?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:So that's it. A seriouspost by flowers of Algeria. What do you think? You are essentially proposing to legislate a right out of existence by making it too inconvenient for anyone but the idle rich to take advantage of. An outright ban would be more defensible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:
Yeah at least that gets right at the philosophical meat of the matter
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
3d printers will have made gun control efforts irrelevant in the next couple years, the idea that you can prevent gun files from being distributed with legislation is utterly laughable. The tech will continue to improve, become cheaper, and there's literally nothing you can do about it. If anything all the noise the states have made this past week has done nothing but Streisand'd the issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:3d printers will have made gun control efforts irrelevant in the next couple years, the idea that you can prevent gun files from being distributed with legislation is utterly laughable. The tech will continue to improve, become cheaper, and there's literally nothing you can do about it. You can make your own guns without a 3D printer. They aren't magic. If you can afford a 3D printer, you can afford to just buy a gun. We are still able to have gun laws. The entire issue is a red herring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
Guns are cool and good, I'm glad I can have them. Also gun rights are my #1 electoral priority. Lastly every gun owner should think about what degree of infringement of our rights they are willing to tolerate and how they should respond should that line be crossed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:3d printers will have made gun control efforts irrelevant in the next couple years, the idea that you can prevent gun files from being distributed with legislation is utterly laughable. The tech will continue to improve, become cheaper, and there's literally nothing you can do about it. 3D printers are actually good because people will buy 3D printers instead of real guns. Preppers will just buy a couple of 3D printers plus material instead of buying a massive, expensive arsenal of guns that they have to worry about protecting. Then once the Illuminati make their move to conquer the world they'll fire up those 3D printers and start pumping out AK-47s to arm the masses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:A good post that I strongly disagree with almost every part of. That is because I do not believe gun ownership to be a right, that is true. The reason I don’t believe it is a right is because I do not believe there is a legitimate reason to own guns other than sport, an opinion that is supported by evidence showing that guns are not useful for self-defense, and that the current model of widespread American gun ownership and gun culture is deathly. Plus, current gun hobbyists are already the kind of people who have the ability sink a bunch of disposable income into their hobby (unless they’re in a dril/candles situation) so even if my proposals have a small impact on the price of that hobby, *shrug*
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
(Note : I don’t even believe gun ownership to be necessary or even desirable for sports purposes. People who want to shoot a gun can simply go to a range to do it on the cheap. And on the Morning of the Revolution against the tyrannical government, I envision that gun ranges will serve as a People Arming Center. But I’m willing to allow private gun ownership because I want to compromise with gun hobbyists. Because the gun death and violence epidemic in America is too serious and it has to be tackled somehow.) Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Aug 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
Ban ammunition sales, do widespread gun buybacks, melt them all down. Our national nightmare could be over in a month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 10:35
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:And on the Morning of the Revolution against the tyrannical government, I envision that gun ranges will serve as a People Arming Center.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:That is because I do not believe gun ownership to be a right, that is true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Then what was the point of wasting all of those words seeking a middle ground that doesn't exist and that you don't believe in?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 12:52
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Then what was the point of wasting all of those words seeking a middle ground that doesn't exist and that you don't believe in? Because while I don’t believe that gun ownership is a right, I have no issue with people who want to shoot guns for fun or for sport, or even to own guns for such purposes. I don’t believe there is a right to paragliding or to own a SUV or AirPods, that doesn’t mean I wish them banned. I believe in pacifying American society, in making it meeker and nicer. I believe in saving the lives of many Americans from needless death and injury. I believe this can be achieved while letting gun hobbyists engage in their hobby. So let’s look at the policy proposals I put forward. Would any of these limit your ability to engage in your hobby? If so, how? If not, why oppose them? And if they were put in place, wouldn’t you comply with them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:(Note : I don’t even believe gun ownership to be necessary or even desirable for sports purposes. People who want to shoot a gun can simply go to a range to do it on the cheap. And on the Morning of the Revolution against the tyrannical government, I envision that gun ranges will serve as a People Arming Center. If you're interested in compromising with gun hobbyists, I'd 100% check literally all of your assumptions, because this sentence reveals that you don't know a whole lot about gun ownership in general. Not trying to be offensive here, sincerely, but "People who want to shoot a gun can simply go to a range to do it on the cheap" is very disconnected from the reality of how gun ownership and shooting ranges function in most countries, let alone in the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:So let’s look at the policy proposals I put forward. Would any of these limit your ability to engage in your hobby? If so, how? If not, why oppose them? And if they were put in place, wouldn’t you comply with them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 13:27
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The combination of your proposals would price me out of my hobby, as is your intent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 13:38
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:What hobby? Collecting guns? Good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
Kommienzuspadt posted:If you're interested in compromising with gun hobbyists, I'd 100% check literally all of your assumptions, because this sentence reveals that you don't know a whole lot about gun ownership in general. Not trying to be offensive here, sincerely, but "People who want to shoot a gun can simply go to a range to do it on the cheap" is very disconnected from the reality of how gun ownership and shooting ranges function in most countries, let alone in the US. In my country, a license to access a gun range costs an average of 80-200 euros a year. Ranges are plentiful enough. Once in a range, you are given access to a selection of guns and pay for your ammunition - and sometimes for a gun rental if it’s fancy. Getting a license is not much harder than getting a fitness club or martial arts dojo membership. Is it that much more difficult or expensive in the US? I would find it hard to believe that gun ranges would be less common in the US than in France. Rent-A-Cop posted:The combination of your proposals would price me out of my hobby, as is your intent. Could you be more specific? Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Aug 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:In my country, a license to access a gun range costs an average of 80-200 euros a year. Ranges are plentiful enough. Once in a range, you are given access to a selection of guns and pay for your ammunition - and sometimes for a gun rental if it’s fancy. Getting a license is not much harder than getting a fitness club or martial arts dojo membership. In the US, range fees vary depending on the club, but anywhere from $70-$1-2k/yr. On the expensive end are nicer indoor facilities that offer some of the services you describe. On the cheaper end they are basically just earthwork berms usually far flung from major population centers, and with zero full time staff or even buildings. Ranges like this do not offer rentals, storage, etc, and require the member to provide everything they need to enjoy the range (guns, ammo, targets, target stands, ear/eye protection, etc). The ranges in the US that do offer rental services aren't really affordable for the average person to use regularly. Typically, those that do use rental ranges services renting firearms from the range (~$10-25/ea) and then paying to use their ammunition (200-500% markup over retail). This business model typically targets people who are not gun owners but want the chance to shoot, or people who may already own guns but want to try out a firearm they're interested in purchasing. Furthermore, most of the time, rental services are a largely unprofitable business unless the prices are inflated even more (think machine gun ranges in Vegas). Usually, rental ranges are part of the bigger business of a membership-based indoor facility or a retail gun store. Essentially, the business model of basically every range I've ever visited hinges on private gun ownership. Clubs/ranges play a much smaller role than they seem to in your country, and this largely has to do with the costs for both the range and the individual consumer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:This is how it would work - once the law is passed, people have several years (maybe 3 ? 5?) to either turn in their gun, or get a license and exchange their unmarked, unlicensed and untracked gun for a tagged one, or to get it tagged. there are something like 300,000,000 guns in the US. I do not think anywhere near that number would end up getting licensed. I think you'd be creating a paperwork headache for people who would follow the law, and not actually decrease the number of guns in circulation by any meaningful amount. Meanwhile, the people who follow the law would probably be the people you should overall be least concerned about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:Meanwhile, the people who follow the law would probably be the people you should overall be least concerned about. Dolphin fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Aug 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:there are something like 300,000,000 guns in the US. I do not think anywhere near that number would end up getting licensed. I think you'd be creating a paperwork headache for people who would follow the law, and not actually decrease the number of guns in circulation by any meaningful amount. Meanwhile, the people who follow the law would probably be the people you should overall be least concerned about. I do not expect this either. There is no realistic solution to immediately curtail the profusion of untracked guns in the US, however, so that was not my aim. What I do expect is that my solution will cut down the number of unregistered and untracked guns in circulation over several decades due to them simply wearing out and having to be replaced. I am not concerned about paperwork headaches, frankly, when it is paperwork surrounding a potentially lethal object that shouldn’t be misplaced under any circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:.What I do expect is that my solution will cut down the number of unregistered and untracked guns in circulation over several decades due to them simply wearing out and having to be replaced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:
This strategy is highly unlikely to work because firearms are incredibly durable consumer goods. There are lots of 100+ year old rifles and pistols that are still very much in serviceable condition. Modern firearms like AR-15s and Glock pistols are even more robustly designed and manufactured and will easily be serviceable for a century or more. Take a look at the AKs that are being used in Afghanistan and Syria. They rolled off Soviet production lines 50 years ago and are horribly maintained. Still work just as good as they day they were made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Jehde posted:In my opinion, guns are good. In my opinion guns are neither good nor bad, they're simply as good or bad as the society who chooses to carry them. Dolphin posted:Ban ammunition sales, do widespread gun buybacks, melt them all down. Our national nightmare could be over in a month. I think any notion of purchasing back guns at this point is nonsense. You might, maybe, maybe cut down random shootings by a very small amount, but with the amount of guns in circulation unless it was a mandatory buyback type of thing not enough gun owners will sell them back to the government and a person who wants to shoot up something will still be able to grab them from their parent's gun rack or friends pick-up truck and go to town. As far as banning ammunition sales goes it would just increase the number of people producing and selling their own. On top of this as 3d printing becomes better and more readily available it won't matter if you completely ban guns, a person who can afford a gun collection can easily afford a 3d printer to print their own poo poo. I think before we ban guns we have to take a good, long look at why we want to ban guns and address the why of it before anything else. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Aug 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:In my opinion guns are neither good nor bad, they're simply as good or bad as the society who chooses to carry them. Producing ammunition should also be illegal, and short of chemists you're not going to find someone who can make the raw materials. Also, secret munitions shops are not exactly easy to hide. In terms of the "fix society" thing that's a very nice nebulous "gee what can we do" solution that no one has an answer to so we should just go ahead and ban guns and ammunition so people stop murdering themselves and others with tools designed by teams of engineers for that purpose. Do these solutions prevent every gun related crime? No. Just most of them. Dolphin fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Aug 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
3D printing? You still need machined metal parts, and ammunition. If someone's going through that much trouble to get a gun and kill a school full of children you're not stopping them with any measure. Those people (Anders Breivbitch) aren't the target of this kinda thing. The trenchcoat mafia was probably not going to make their own guns if their parents didn't have any. More likely they'd probably just kidnap a kid to bully and then jump off a bridge or something like the good old days Dolphin fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Aug 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 18:09
|
|