The Gaming Den

A better answer might be "That ship has fucking sailed. There are so many things you should have fought and yet all we got were protests that served as target practice for the police. If the uprising hasn't happened now, it never will."

Call me a glass half empty guy if you want, but I see the same information and figure that it means a determined insurgency takes somewhere around a half-decade to incur enough casualties that even the hawks facetiously agree that we should feel a little bad about it. And then people go back to talking shit about China and Russia.

In Iraq, a determined insurgency was able to - at the cost of hundreds of thousands Iraqi lives - kill a couple thousand American soldiers. The deaths of Americans were so much less than the deaths of Americans from road traffic accidents or smoking that they didn't even figure into our national discourse. We didn't leave Iraq because of enemy action, we left because of funding concerns. And that was for a war which has never and will never be adequately explained. Literally no one knew why we were there in the first place, and it took a solid decade of paying for the damn thing with deficit spending before people could all agree that the unfunded costs were too high for getting absolutely nothing. If you're talking about an actual existential threat, there's no reason to believe we'd ever give up from losses that low.

If you think we'd pull out of Texas because Texas gun owners "revolted" and killed a couple thousand Americans over ten years, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Texan gun owners kill almost three thousand people Every Year.

Gun owners across the country kill about 86 people a day, which means that the Connecticut tragedy, while individually impressive only accounts for 31% of that day's quota of firearms deaths. The literal mountain of corpses firearms pile up every day are beyond reason. And just this week, the Michigan "we aren't facing election and can do whatever the fuck we want" outgoing Republican state legislature just made legal to carry concealed firearms in daycare centers. You're welcome.

-Username17

According to the CDC firearm homicides are just 36.7% of all firearms deaths. For all the the USA in 2009, that amounts to 11,439 people that year, or 3.7 people per 100,000 nationally or 31.3 daily are killed. I will give you that according to the pdf only 5306 homicdes *aren't* firearms related, which is appalling but logical.

Do I think some form of regulation should exist? Definitely. I rather like how Canada has us take a safety course before we can get a firearm license, and then we have to get background checks to make sure we're not a danger to ourselves and others. Of course, the regulation of actual firearms is nonsensical at times, but hey.

What will help stop crazed gunmen is better mental health (not sure of what to say... network? Framework? Support?) Screening should be implemented. The vast majority of gun owners are not the problem, and making more poorly made legislation will only make gun owners and the NRA more entrenched.

Additionally, maybe we could stop having police waste money on drones and military surplus gear and instead use it for training? Having police who are actually skilled with their weapons would be safer for everybody, and removing idiotic measures like NY's 12 lb triggers would help make them more accurate. That NYC shootout was appalling, but understandable given the lack of range time most police get.

The thing is that the firearm suicides are also tragedies, and part of the same problem. The Belcher tragedy is that two people died, not that there was one homicide. The Oregon mall shooting is two homicides and one suicide. The Connecticut school rampage is 26 homicides and 1 suicide.

Murder-suicides are actually a really common problem, and a problem that is especially associated with firearms. By focusing on just the "homicide" portion of that problem, you're ignoring a quite large chunk of the deaths and unfairly reducing the magnitude of the overall tragedy and damage to our society that guns cause.

Edit: Note that gun control will not stop crazy people from attacking schools full of children. Why, just yesterday there was a mass attack in China of a similar scale carried out with knives. Thing is though, 22 injured children is a lot less worse than 20 dead ones.

-Username17

Even if guns were completely banned and the ban wouldn't be uplifted forever, how long and at what level of crackdown intensity would it take to reduce the level of guns in the country so that it would have a meaningful effect on:

1.) Suicides
2.) Accidental shootings
3.) Intentional homicide
4.) Terrorism/Spree Shootings
5.) Organized crime

The level of gun ownership and the amount of guns floating around in the United States is fucking nuts. Really, there are like 9 guns per 10 people in this country. It's crazy. It's so high that I think that trying to curb the above five things by gun control or even gun banning is only going to have a tiny and bullshit effect on the level of gun injuries/crime for a couple of generations. You might see a significant drop in the number of suicides in about six-to-eight years, but if you want to reduce the number of people killed because some teenage boy shot himself in the face trying to impress his girlfriend we're talking about a 30-year project.

It seems to me that if your goal is to reduce the number of murder-suicides or prevent little Timmy from being accidentally shot by his 7-year old sister right now, as far as the U.S. is concerned reducing the amount of guns in circulation is one of the least effective ways to do that.

Actually Lago, if you ban all the guns, that drastically reduces the amount of people using the guns and having the guns now.

If you make it actually illegal to own a gun, it doesn't matter that much that a bunch of crazies are going to keep their guns, because law abiding people are going to turn their damn guns in the country wide Dollars for Deathsticks program, because having free money for a thing you never really use is better than being arrested for it.

Now of course, we could never actually implement a total ban in the US for political reasons, but if we could, it would be much more effective than that.

What will help stop crazed gunmen is better mental health

Largely agreed. I don't like guns and I don't have one around, but it largely seems to me that gun violence is only really a problem when someone batshit crazy or someone part of an honor culture (like a gang member) starts using them. Honor cultures are hard to get rid of without actually solving the poverty problem, but working on America's overall mental health seems like it would be a decent way to avoid the big, publicized tragedies.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Even if guns were completely banned and the ban wouldn't be uplifted forever, how long and at what level of crackdown intensity would it take to reduce the level of guns in the country so that it would have a meaningful effect on:

1.) Suicides

A mild crackdown would likely have a significant effect here. Other methods of suicide exist, but often take more effort, giving more time for friends, family and community to intervene.

2.) Accidental shootings

A mild to moderate crackdown would likely produce a major reduction here.

3.) Intentional homicide

This will continue happen no matter the level of crackdown, however any sort of crackdown will reduce the incidence. If nothing else, it gives prosecutors another charge to use against defendants in lesser-degree cases

4.) Terrorism/Spree Shootings

I suspect that even a mild crackdown would have a pretty notable reduction here. Most of the recent high profile spree shooters have been notably mentally disturbed for months before the violence, and just making it harder for the violently mentally ill to get firearms would reduce such shootings.

5.) Organized crime

A mild crackdown will have a mild effect, since it is another charge for prosecutors. However the problem is that even a severe crackdown would still likely only have a mild effect here. Even if you miraculously collected and demilled every firearm currently in the US and stopped all legitimate manufacturing, it would only be a matter of days before every major criminal organization who had machine shops secretly turning out their own AKs, SKSs or STENs.

Kaelik wrote: If you make it actually illegal to own a gun, it doesn't matter that much that a bunch of crazies are going to keep their guns, because law abiding people are going to turn their damn guns in the country wide Dollars for Deathsticks program, because having free money for a thing you never really use is better than being arrested for it.

How would banning guns stop criminals from killing people? They're already not following the laws. Punishing law abiding citizens will do nothing to curb this, and frankly, I don't see how it'd be possible to ever remove guns from the continent. The box has been opened, and the knowledge is out there; any idiot with half a brain and some machining equipment can make a firearm that works, and a zip gun can be made even easier.

Also, how do you know most law abiding people aren't using their guns? Just because they aren't killing people with them? The vast majority of gun owners either hunt/exterminate animals or targets.

Meikle641 wrote:How would banning guns stop criminals from killing people?

The answer seems to be: very well, thank you.

Let's look at Australia. From 1984-96 there were several mass shooting incidents in the country. After a particularly bad one (35 dead, 21 wounded), they passed sweeping gun control legislature.

Number of mass shootings since? Zero.

Did it stop mass shootings? Sure, for now. Hopefully stays that way. But it hasn't stopped criminals from killing people with them, given that 30 of the 262 homicides in Australia in 2009's data were done with firearms. (On a side note, that is a rather envious total. Wish Canada's murder numbers were that low)

Stopping mass shootings and stopping murders aren't the same thing.

Meikle is entirely right if we can't stop all gun related deaths we shouldn't stop ANY! I mean, if every life counts then no life counts until all of them are saved... right?

What will help stop crazed gunmen is better mental health

of course that would be better for them.
but it would be better for anybody else if they did not have access to guns in the first place.

It seems to me that these mass shooters all have in common the fact they weren't career criminals. Ban guns and you may end this particular type of gun violence, but you won't end all types of gun violence. The bottom line question is whether the number of homicides per year will decrease if you ban guns, looking at England the answer to this is yes.

Meikle641 wrote:How would banning guns stop criminals from killing people? They're already not following the laws. Punishing law abiding citizens will do nothing to curb this, and frankly, I don't see how it'd be possible to ever remove guns from the continent. The box has been opened, and the knowledge is out there; any idiot with half a brain and some machining equipment can make a firearm that works, and a zip gun can be made even easier.

Because if you punish those "law abiding citizens" who manufacture and own illegal objects (IE, are not law abiding), then they will not do that, and they will abide by the law, and then there will not be as many guns. How do you think criminals get guns? Do you think they build them in their workshops? Or do you think they instead steal them from people, or buy them in places where you can buy legally purchased guns?

If you can't legally sell or purchase guns, or own them, then they will not have legal guns to steal or buy. You know, like other countries that ban guns.

Meikle641 wrote:Also, how do you know most law abiding people aren't using their guns? Just because they aren't killing people with them? The vast majority of gun owners either hunt/exterminate animals or targets.

I know that because handguns make up more than half of all guns sold, and you don't buy a handgun for hunting or pest extermination.

Do you have any possible grounding for you belief most gun owners hunt or exterminate aside from your asshole?

PhoneLobster wrote:Meikle is entirely right if we can't stop all gun related deaths we shouldn't stop ANY! I mean, if every life counts then no life counts until all of them are saved... right?

I didn't say I was against safety measures, since I rather like ones that work. What I do think is that they should be sensible and not some knee-jerk reaction. If they'd actually have people who understand firearms help with the language of the legislation it'd make things a lot more sensible. No, not talking about lobbying, I'm talking about having actual technical and mechanical knowledge of firearms. Doing legislation without that sort of resource is as nonsensical as the series of tubes senator (governor?) writing laws on internet regulation.

Kaelik wrote:
Because if you punish those "law abiding citizens" who manufacture and own illegal objects (IE, are not law abiding), then they will not do that, and they will abide by the law, and then there will not be as many guns. How do you think criminals get guns? Do you think they build them in their workshops? Or do you think they instead steal them from people, or buy them in places where you can buy legally purchased guns?

If you can't legally sell or purchase guns, or own them, then they will not have legal guns to steal or buy. You know, like other countries that ban guns.

I'd assume that people who are manufacturing firearms in order to kill people after a gun ban are probably not law-abiding citizens. Chances are they're criminals who want to kill someone.

Kaelik wrote:
I know that because handguns make up more than half of all guns sold, and you don't buy a handgun for hunting or pest extermination.

Do you have any possible grounding for you belief most gun owners hunt or exterminate aside from your asshole?

Handgun hunting is a thing, actually, but I find it rather silly. Better to use a rifle or shotgun. That said, having a sidearm on hand if your rifle jams or runs out, and you are being charged by an animal is a sensical precaution. Otherwise, you are right, most extermination and hunting is not done with handguns, I agree.

You also seem to be missing "or targets." from that statement, Kaelik. Some people take out vermin with a plinking rifle on the farm, others hunt elk and boars or whatever, and lots more simply shoot targets and shit at ranges and such. What is bullshit about that statement? Alright, I will concede that there are plenty of people who buy guns "for protection" and never touch them again or really learn how to use them, and instead leave them in a closet.

Meikle641 wrote:I'd assume that people who are manufacturing firearms in order to kill people after a gun ban are probably not law-abiding citizens. Chances are they're criminals who want to kill someone.

I assume that it those people illegally manufacturing firearms will be tracked down and fucking arrested, like they do drug growers, and that like all fucking crimes, this enforcement will deter but not eliminate the crime.

But since the entire fucking United States having like a thousand guns in it is going to drastically reduce the number of people getting fucking killed, I'm fine with that.

Meikle641 wrote:You also seem to be missing "or targets."

I am "missing" targets because you were "missing" targets you idiot.

The reason you left out targets is because who the fuck cares about people who shoot targets not getting to shoot targets?

Here are the possible uses that target shooting might serve:

1) To make you better at shooting a gun for when you do need to use it.

2) Recreation.

3) Completely mindless industry makework that boost the economy.

If you can't find a way of accomplishing 2 and 3 without having to own an instrument of murder, then you deserve to be murdered. Here is one, use a fucking pellet gun for your target shooting. Fuck, Area 51 the Arcade shooter exists. You can shoot at pretty targets for your fucking recreation.

1) only matters if you have a legitimate need to use a gun, and by definition all the people in the fucking universe who do not hunt or exterminate pests (that could be much more easily exterminated by some method not using guns) do not fucking have that need.

Meikle641 wrote:Stopping mass shootings and stopping murders aren't the same thing.

I don't understand. Is a mass shooting not several murders? If you stop a mass shooting, have you not stopped several murders?

angelfromanotherpin wrote:

Meikle641 wrote:Stopping mass shootings and stopping murders aren't the same thing.

I don't understand. Is a mass shooting not several murders? If you stop a mass shooting, have you not stopped several murders?

Mass shootings are murders, but not all murders are mass shootings.

On target shooting: you can also just license shooting ranges for the ownership and usage of firearms on their property. And then you have all your dangerous shootiness happening in a place that is well-trained to deal with the dangers of shootiness and has a personal interest (liability) in ensuring that you use their firearms with safety in mind.

Guns don't do anything of any value beyond "they're fun and they make me feel MURRIKEN!" One of the main things I rather like about getting rid of guns is if the U.S. populace wasn't so freakishly well-armed, our police officers would not need to be freakishly well-armed, and SWAT would not need to do completely mundane house raids to justify their existence. Less guns, disarmed police, and SWAT reserved for armed and dangerous criminals is three sources of bullshit unnecessary deaths and lesser harms we can cut down on right there.

Kaelik,

There's no reason to be so upset. If almost all gun owners aren't harming anyone, why are you so against their continuing not to harm anyone?

Assuming you didn't have the 2nd amendment (so pesky, that), you could do the following:
1) Require all would-be firearm users to complete a safety course and test.
2) Require background checks (something that I'm fairly sure is already being done.)
3) Require a psych check of some sort, and have to pass one every x years to maintain your license. Probably have to pass another practical exam, as well.
4) Require 'reasonable' storage regulations for firearms in order to help stop thefts and accidental deaths.
5) Make the Eddie Eagle-style education more widespread. That will help save lives.
6) Require anybody with a Concealed Carry permit to be able to pass a safety course and exam. (I'd best most CC people can shoot better than the average cop, but accuracy isn't necessarily training.)


I suppose you could continue to make full-auto weapons only possible for the rich to own, but their impact on crime is next to none, since basically nobody can own one anyway.

Meikle641 wrote:
Assuming you didn't have the 2nd amendment (so pesky, that), you could do the following:
1) Require all would-be firearm users to complete a safety course and test.
2) Require background checks (something that I'm fairly sure is already being done.)
3) Require a psych check of some sort, and have to pass one every x years to maintain your license. Probably have to pass another practical exam, as well.
4) Require 'reasonable' storage regulations for firearms in order to help stop thefts and accidental deaths.
5) Make the Eddie Eagle-style education more widespread. That will help save lives.
6) Require anybody with a Concealed Carry permit to be able to pass a safety course and exam. (I'd best most CC people can shoot better than the average cop, but accuracy isn't necessarily training.)

Actually, according to Scalia in DC v. Heller,

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

you could do all of that except for #4. What you cannot do because of the 2nd Amendment is outright ban all guns.

What's stopping any of those from happening? People who cannot see the tight relationship between liberty and responsibility. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the modern Republican Party.

Meikle641 wrote:Assuming you didn't have the 2nd amendment (so pesky, that), you could do the following:

I hear that amendments to the Constitution can be Repealed if there is enough popular support. So it would in fact be possible to get rid of that "pesky" amendment and actually institute laws based on evidence rather than what was a good idea 200 years ago?

Meikle641 wrote: There's no reason to be so upset. If almost all gun owners aren't harming anyone, why are you so against their continuing not to harm anyone?

Holy fucking shit.