Gun Control Equates To No Guns, Like The Drug War Equates to No Drugs

For full disclosure, I am pretty solidly on the right side of the political spectrum, but I am by no means a person that automatically falls in line with the NRA. I don't own a gun because I do not see the need, but I also think that gun ownership should be legal. I have no problem with reasonable limits to getting a gun, such as waiting periods, background checks, etc. Nor do I think that society is best served by virtually everyone walking around with a concealed carry permit. I take a more common sense approach than either of the extremes on both sides of this issue.

With that being said, you cannot, and will not, eliminate guns from those that want them for nefarious purposes. You can no more reduce the number of guns in the hands of a wanting criminal, then you can keep drugs out of the hands of a wanting user. There are already millions of guns in this country, both legal and illegal. If you were to ban guns today, for the most part the law abiding citizens would turn theirs in, and the criminals would not. The black market that exists today for guns would grow exponentially. I do not know anyone that sells heroin, but regardless of the war on drugs, if I desired to have some, I could without question have it in my hands tonight. The same could be said about guns, especially in a situation where their possession was outright banned, and the black market for them predictably expanded. In a nation where guns were outlawed, getting one would be no more difficult than getting heroin.

When things like this church shooting happen, the left is always out front, implying that gun legality is the reason this happened, essentially putting forth the strawman argument that "if guns were illegal or more stringently regulated, this wouldn't have happened". This tragedy occurred because of a lunatic wanting to create destruction, and the fact that guns exist. Yes it takes both of those factors, but lets not pretend that outlawing guns would have prevented this lunatic from being able to get a gun and carry out his plan. If you were looking at an otherwise law abiding citizen that has a concealed carry permit, gets in a drunken argument, and shoots someone in a fit of rage, THEN you could argue that gun legality caused that situation. With a planned ambush such as this and most other mass shootings, the same correlation just doesn't exist.

 

You are correct that banning guns won't get rid of them all.

However, it WOULD make it harder to get a gun. It would deter some people, and for the ones that are not deterred, they would have to spend more money and/or time to aquire one.

This issue, like pretty much EVERY other, is not really a black or white issue. You don't want to ban guns, but you also don't want to have NO regulations to help protect the people. The arguing comes from deciding which shade of gray we want.

I don't think any reasonable person expects regulations to completley get rid of a problem. By using them, we are trying to slow things down to give us time to try other solutions and to mitigate the damage caused.

 

People spending a little more time or money has no real impact. If we outlawed guns tomorrow and a month from now a mas shooting happens what then?

 

One could argue that guns being illegal wouldn't even make it harder for a criminal with nefarious intent to get a gun. If anything, them being illegal would exponentially grow the black market, which would make it easier than going through the background check process that they do currently to get one legally. I agree this issue is obviously not black and white, but talking about gun control every time there is a mass shooting, is disingenuous political grandstanding, because mass shooters that plan out their attacks would be able to get a gun whether they are legal or not.

 

As a person that once had a foot in the darker end of society I will say no it wouldn't. In my youth before I grew up I could get most drugs and a gun (pistols were the easiest) within a few hours certainly within the day. This is while they are legal. Making them illegal would make them easier in a majority of cases)

My issue with the regulations though is that some places in this country make it nearly impossible to own a gun legally. It should be a simple matter of passing a background check and I am allowed to own a gun. (for the extremists I don't mean ANY gun like rocket launchers and 50 cal. Brownings ok........sheeeze)

Carrying it is another topic, I'm speaking specifically of owning one.

 

Criminals obey anti firearms laws like child molesters care about children.

 

How much impact spending more time and money would cause remains to be seen. I don't think that ANYONE has done a real study on this.

Not that I'm for it. But if we WERE to ban all guns, we would also have to start enforcing more 'Moral' upbringing and correcting the social problems that cause the illegal acts.

The problem with guns, IMO, is that they escalate the situation. If both you and your attacker are unarmed, it comes down to skill. If your attacker is armed and you are not, then yes, you may be screwed. However, if you are armed and your attacker is not, then that attacker is screwed. With the gun in a person's hands, they are more likely to kill that unarmed attacker just because they 'feel' threatened.

I worry that many people don't place much, if any, value on human life these days. IMO, your life is much more important than a material, physical possession.

- - - Updated - - -

Easier in that sense. But if we boost police forces and have them attack the black market, then it could be more dangerous to deal with them.

 

Which is why we need to seriously start enforcing our laws, and enact much harsher penalties for people breaking them. We also need to start addressing WHY people commit crimes and finding solutions.

Just allowing everyone to have a gun won't work. Sure, we may be safer for awhile, until people start getting angry in droves. Then, the body count goes up much quicker because people have the ability to kill more quickly and easily.

- - - Updated - - -

True, and that's why gun laws ALONE would never work.

However, as part of a more comprehensive solution, which involves addressing WHY people commit crimes, it may help speed up a solution.

 

There will always be guns.
There will always be drugs.

Criminals will always have/sell guns.
Criminals will always have/sell drugs.

There are people that believe a law will change this.
There will always be a sucker born every minute.
(attributed to) PT Barnum

 

That doesn't mean we just arm everyone and escalate things until we all kill each other, either.

It just means we have to argue, compromise, etc, until we come to a agreement on which shade of gray we want.

 

Sorry, but there I'm going to have to disagree with you.

The only way to curb it like that is through, and no I am not joking, is mind control techniques of some sort,

 

So, in your opinion, we can't stop the moral decay of America? We can't slow it down? We shouldn't even TRY?

If we aren't even going to try to be good, honest, nice people in general, why even exist? If the vast majority of the world was like this (decayed morals), I'd have to support total annihilation at that point.

Just because something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

There is no such thing as moral decay. I personally view morality as just another excuse to hurt people and i can see no difference between the self righteous imposing their morality through force than the thugs.

Sorry. But morality is crap to me.

And morality has nothing to do with mind control.

\And who's morality are we going to impose this time and will it really be any different than the morality that encourages things like slavery and discrimination? aren't we really just exchanging one type of bedlam for another?

Why is your morality more valid than anyone elses?

Remember, homosexuals can not be married because people are objecting to it morally.

As just one example of the bs that is morality.

All atrocities that have ever been committed throughout history were not seen as atrocities because the people who were committing thing thought they were doing the right thing.

So tell me again about the moral decay of America?

Sorry, but I just can't see it.

This whining about moral decay in America is really nothing more than people whining that they're losing their special place and privileges in America.

 

To this I have a response.
1. Do you understand rational choice theory?
2. Do you know what a car is?

 

Pretty much an example of why American is in decay. Ethics and morality are important. It is that 'mind control' you speak of . Ethical and moral people will live decent lives and make a civilized population as opposed to those that disdain morality and make it up as they go along to suit their own desires.

 

No one has ever argued in favor of such. Yet those who support greater firearm restrictions often toss such nonsense about as if it were a viable option.

And what form of compromise does the side that supports greater firearm restrictions ever make in such discussions? They tend to present extreme suggestions, and refuse to listen to anyone who believes the proposal goes too far in attempting to address a minor issue.

 

I am quite certain that you are well aware that I know what a car is. Rather than speaking in condescending riddles, it would be far more productive for you to say whatever it is that you want to say.

 

If we as a species are not going to aspire to be the best we can be, to be decent and kind human beings, then maybe we should not exist, IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, there are a fair number of examples in the threads on this board of the pro-gun side that present only extreme solutions as well. And I don't think this is a minor issue.

I'm not for banning all guns, but I am for reasonable and agreeable limits on them. We just still have to come up with a consensus of what is reasonable.

 

I ask this because it has to be said. If people don't understand Rational Actor theory, then it's pointless to explain.

Human beings act rationally or so goes the theory. If something is irrational to do, then humans won't do it. Humans also look at the costs of a decision before they make a decision. Cost doesn't mean mean money persay, rather the factors that go into making a decision. So let's say a man named Homer wants to buy a gun but can't because his town passed a law saying that he couldn't buy one. Homer also lost his licenses from drinking while driving. So now he has to bike wherever he wants to go. He can only bike in a 10 mile radius (or 20 miles total). The town closest to him that would let him buy a gun is 20 miles away. He won't be able to buy it though because the costs of getting the gun are too high (He can't get there). He could ask for someone with a license to buy the gun for him, but the costs have gone up considerably then. Not only would he be committing a crime, but he would have to pay a middleman now. This is where cars come into play. Let's say he got his license back and can now drive in a 100 mile radius (or 200 miles total). He can easily buy the gun now because the costs of getting the gun have decreased.

In the US our roads are designed for cars and with a high car ownership rate, the mass movements of goods is possible. This means that a gun law in one town for gun control won't work as efficiently if other places don't do it too. So it's possible, but a lot of places have to do it.

 

So if Homer wants to commit a mass shooting, he wont get in his car and drive to buy a gun, because he lost his license? The whole point is that a criminal with nefarious intent isn't going to follow the law, and just like with drugs, a gun can be found whether legal or not.

 

And what would happen if he got caught driving without a license? If he wants to commit a mass shooting, then he needs the element of surprise on his side. Making himself a target for police is not going to do that. Think of it like this, a mass murderer is inside a person's home. Is that person going to lock his bedroom door or leave it unlocked? The murderer can get in either way but making him stop and try to break down the door increases the costs of committing the crime.

 

Aspiration will only carry one so far. Eventually one must face facts when reality dictates that nothing more can be done.

It was never said otherwise. Yet only one side of the discussion regularly presents the proposals for total prohibitions on select types of firearms, as being a viable solution.

It was in reference to the extreme nature of those who engage in this argument over and over again. Even if statistics do not support their position, they do not care, and simply attempt to misconstrue facts to suit their agenda.

Then it sounds as if you are of an open mind, and willing to consider various approaches even if they are not among party lines.

Perhaps it is time to engage in a thought exercise. The purpose of firearm restrictions should be to negatively impact criminal actions, by those who cannot legally possess firearms under any circumstances, without suggesting anyone who owns a firearm is a potential criminal who must be treated with suspicion and paranoia, as if they are one day away from going on a killing spree.

Under the above guidelines, what recommendations would you make, that you can consider to be reasonable? Specifically why do you consider them to be reasonable for consideration, and what is the estimated outcome that you believe they would most likely achieve?

 

In the very rare instance where he was caught driving for the one time to go buy the gun, he would probably get a large fine, and MAYBE spend a night in jail. There would be no legitimate deterrent to reaching his goal of committing a mass shooting. If he wants a gun, he is going to get a gun, regardless if it is legal or not.

Whether he got a ticket for driving on a suspended license, and whether he happened to spend a night in jail, has no bearing on the element of surprise to his victims. Just as the war on drugs doesn't stop anyone from getting drugs, banning guns isn't going to stop a criminal with nefarious intent from getting a gun. To think otherwise is incredibly naïve.

As far as the locked bedroom door and increasing the cost of committing the crime.....come to think of it, if you sleep in the upstairs bedroom rather than downstairs, you have ALSO increased the cost of committing the crime, since he had to walk several extra steps. We could also put down carpeting, as opposed to the hardwood floors, because that increases friction which requires more work to walk, and maybe that little extra cost of committing the crime will stop it in its tracks.

 

1. Police officer to Homer- "I see you're driving without a license. Where are you going?"
2. "People whose are pulled over and don’t have their driver’s licenses or who do have them with them, but they are suspended or revoked, almost always get arrested. Driving on a suspended or revoked driver’s license is a much more serious offense than driving with no driver’s license at all or simply forgetting it."
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-happens-when-you-get-pulled-over-without-a-drivers-license/

They're going to be asking questions about why he was driving with a suspended licenses. A lie can be checked out, and any interests are going to be found. Remember Rational Actor Theory says that there is a reason for everything. If Homer is acting rationally, then there was a reason for driving without a suspended license. The costs of doing that are high if caught. So what could compel him to do something like that?

Yes that is true. Is there a point with this?

 

I'd love to see us be the best that we can be myself.

But it will never happen.

And the big problem with you is, there is no such things as common sense or reasonable control.

The big problem is that we all have our own influences, prejudices, and bigotries that color our perceptions and thus will have different interpretations of what is reasonable.

For example, those who oppose homosexual marriage think it's very reasonable to not allow homosexuals to marry because it makes a mockery of heterosexual marriage. That's very reasonable to them.

For me, what is reasonable is the Wiccan creed.

Which is an it harm none, do what thou will.

Because you see, I'm not bothered by people who want to own firearms to do things like hunting for both sport and food or target shooting for sport, such as Olympic target shooting.

Environmentalist extremists believe that it is very reasonable to outlaw hunting of all types, bow or firearm or other, in order to protect the animals and the environment. To them it is very reasonable to outlaw firearms.

Some people are so afraid of firearms that they think its very reasonable to not allow people to own firearms for target shooting.

Obama wants to take away all automatic weapons like aR 15s and not allow any civilian to have them and he thinks that's very reasonable, even though he is a constitutional scholar and would know what inalienable rights mean.

So, I pong this question to you.

What do you think are reasonable controls? Can you give any specific examples of what you mean by reasonable?