Opinion of the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act, 1997

[Deldem]

Again, just because you can't think of a reason to own something doesn't mean it should be banned.  That's a very dangerous road to go down.

And do you even know what a Desert Eagle is?  It's NOT a gun criminals use.  Too expensive to buy, too expensive to use, not very dependable, not very accurate.  Banning the Desert Eagle is as stupid as Cali banning .50cal sniper rifles. 

These things are not used in crime, but they are big and scary...SO LETS BAN 'EM!

I was just using it for my point. They're ridiculously unnecessary.

The question, I think, is whether the potential dangers of the gun outweigh the benefits of it. And I can see nothing wrong with having increased safety, in exchange for the removal of only the most powerful guns.

I fail to see how society is better off having these guns than not. It's not authoritarian to say that a small amount of controls can be placed on weapons that are too powerful to actually do anything useful. Can you hunt with them? No. Can you use them for self-defense? Yes, but wouldn't it be just as good to have a smaller pistol or a shotgun? I just can't see any effects of not having these guns besides lower accidental death rates.

[Free Palestine]

I fail to see how society is better off having these guns than not. It's not authoritarian to say that a small amount of controls can be placed on weapons that are too powerful to actually do anything useful. Can you hunt with them? No. Can you use them for self-defense? Yes, but wouldn't it be just as good to have a smaller pistol or a shotgun? I just can't see any effects of not having these guns besides lower accidental death rates.

Yes, it is.

[Deldem]

I fail to see how society is better off having these guns than not. It's not authoritarian to say that a small amount of controls can be placed on weapons that are too powerful to actually do anything useful. Can you hunt with them? No. Can you use them for self-defense? Yes, but wouldn't it be just as good to have a smaller pistol or a shotgun? I just can't see any effects of not having these guns besides lower accidental death rates.

Yes, it is.

So you would have the nation's police force put in greater danger just so you can buy a gun you'll probably never use outside of a target range, unless you're a member of a drug cartel?

You know, anti-gun control people always say that only criminals get the guns if there is gun control- which may be true. But allowing these guns allows them to get the weaponry far easier. Allowing heavy-duty guns allows for criminals to fight with more heavy-duty guns.

Do we really want anything close to what we had for regulations (or lack thereof) in the 1930s? Remember gangsters? Remember how tons of innocents died thanks to organized crime. I don't give a damn if its "too restrictive" if the country is safer as a whole and nobody suffers because of it.

Authoritarian moves are arbitrary. This is not- it increases safety, while not even affecting the average citizen. Looked at from a pragmatic standpoint, it's logical policy.

[dead0man]

Again, just because you can't think of a reason to own something doesn't mean it should be banned.  That's a very dangerous road to go down.

And do you even know what a Desert Eagle is?  It's NOT a gun criminals use.  Too expensive to buy, too expensive to use, not very dependable, not very accurate.  Banning the Desert Eagle is as stupid as Cali banning .50cal sniper rifles. 

These things are not used in crime, but they are big and scary...SO LETS BAN 'EM!

I was just using it for my point. They're ridiculously unnecessary.

The question, I think, is whether the potential dangers of the gun outweigh the benefits of it. And I can see nothing wrong with having increased safety, in exchange for the removal of only the most powerful guns.

I fail to see how society is better off having these guns than not. It's not authoritarian to say that a small amount of controls can be placed on weapons that are too powerful to actually do anything useful. Can you hunt with them? No. Can you use them for self-defense? Yes, but wouldn't it be just as good to have a smaller pistol or a shotgun? I just can't see any effects of not having these guns besides lower accidental death rates.

You're totally missing my point(s).  These guns are NOT used in crime.  Bad guys don't use these guns for reasons I've already explained.  When you ban them, you ain't making people safer, you're needlessly pissing off collectors of unique and expensive guns.  These kinds of guns don't fall into the hands of thugs, they are much too expensive for that.  And of course the old "just because you can't think of a need for it doesn't mean it needs to be illegal" argument.

But you've made it clear by now that BIG SCARY GUN is enough for you to want it banned regardless of how little chance BIG SCARY GUN has of ever being used by a bad guy. 

Maybe you're right though, nobody has used a BIG SCARY .50cal rifle in Cali since they passed the ban on them....just like before the ban.

[Franzl]

People that support this type of thing don't seem to realize that banning something doesn't make it go away.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

People that support this type of thing don't seem to realize that banning something doesn't make it go away.

I think most people understand that. The essential point is that it makes it legally (as well as culturally) unacceptable. The same sort of logic underpins a lot of bans.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do we really want anything close to what we had for regulations (or lack thereof) in the 1930s? Remember gangsters? Remember how tons of innocents died thanks to organized crime. I don't give a damn if its "too restrictive" if the country is safer as a whole and nobody suffers because of it.

You're confusing the cause with the method used.  The root cause of the mob violence in this country in the 1930s, and in Mexico today is prohibition of intoxicants peoplw want to use, not guns.  If the government would stop worrying so much about what people voluntarily want to consume, we'd all be a lot better off.  Indeed, that's the problem with the War on Drugs.  To enforce one set of authoritarian laws, they need a whole lot more other laws to do so.  As a whole society would be better off with none of them than all of them.

[MK]

People that support this type of thing don't seem to realize that banning something doesn't make it go away.

Yes, the bad guys don't care about laws. 


Off topic a bit , but  Ive always wondered why gun control pushed when its a political liability?

The rich ruling class and the same greedy bastards who have ran this country into the ground are mostly behind it.     The last thing they want is Americans getting pissed off and the bullits go flying their way.   If you think about it they could care less that banning guns would lead to the bad guys having them because  the bad guys aren't going after them, but instead the regular working class.  They don't care about us killing eachother just don't take out any of them.  Gun Control laws do one thing -  KEEPS WEAPONS OUT THE HANDS OF  VOTERS.

Think about it.

[Phony Moderate]

People that support this type of thing don't seem to realize that banning something doesn't make it go away.

I think most people understand that. The essential point is that it makes it legally (as well as culturally) unacceptable. The same sort of logic underpins a lot of bans.

^^^^^^^^^This.

[Beet]

People that support this type of thing don't seem to realize that banning something doesn't make it go away.

I think most people understand that. The essential point is that it makes it legally (as well as culturally) unacceptable. The same sort of logic underpins a lot of bans.

^^^^^^^^^This.

^^^^^^^^^

[Magic 8-Ball]

Why should merely owning such guns be culturally unacceptable?

[Beet]

The more culturally unacceptable it is, the fewer people will own them in the long run, and this will raise the barriers to violent gun attacks in the future.

[Magic 8-Ball]

And for the majority that simply collect, are they shit out of luck because of criminals?

[Beet]

Yes, because it imposes an external cost on society. The vast majority of smokers don't get lung cancer, but all smokers are sh**t out of luck because of the minority who do. If we are going to judge one class by such a standard it's unfair to give special privileges to gun collectors.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why should merely owning such guns be culturally unacceptable?

Well if you don't like them, well... answer is obvious, isn't it. But what I was getting at was that in Britain owning firearms was already culturally unacceptable (with a few exceptions that most people would recognise) before this legislation was passed, and that the reasons for popular demands for gun control here were to make owning firearms even more unacceptable by making them illegal.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Why should merely owning such guns be culturally unacceptable?

Well if you don't like them, well... answer is obvious, isn't it.

Aye.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I don't doubt that Britain has a less favorable view of guns than does the US, and I don't begrudge Britons that view.  For that reason, I abstained from voting.

My question was more aimed at Beet, who lives in a country where large swaths of the population view gun ownership in more...familial terms: collecting them and passing them down to your children and (they to their children), buying one for your progeny at certain and going to ranges and competitions, and things of that nature.

If laws were strengthened to where using such weapons made criminals eligible for stiffer punishment, I don't think many would oppose such legislation.  A flat-out ban (on any kind of gun), I think, misses the nuances in gun ownership and assumes that anyone with a gun is up to no good.

And I say this as someone who isn't a gun nut.

[Beet]

Well, I was merely responding to Franzl's point that "banning something doesn't make it go away," which is a common argument in the US as well as Britain, and gets deployed not only for blanket bans but for any restrictions on firearms whatsoever.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Fair enough, but I don't think that making something "culturally unacceptable" is a great way to get criminals to not do something.  That's probably the last thing they care about.

[Beet]

I disagree. Criminals are no less subject to cultural pressures than anyone else. In fact a lot of them become criminals because they think it's cool. A lot of mass shooters also worship previous mass shooters who received a lot of media attention. On the opposite end of the spectrum, according to Malcolm Gladwell, tolerating graffitti on the NYC subway contributed to the crime there.

Also, I think there's a false distinction between 'criminals' and 'innocents'. Take the case of the recent university professor shooter who shot her brother when she was a kid but got away with it as an accident. This turned her into a criminal for the rest of her life, and somehow disturbed her enough that she did it again. But had a gun not existed in that household, it is very likely that none of her shootings would ever have happened, and she would be an 'innocent'. This very clear divide doesn't really exist and it ignores the fact that many crimes are crimes of opportunity.

Finally, this kind of distinction only deals with intentional shootings whereas many of the deaths from gun crimes are unintentional or semi intentional. There are a lot of gray areas that the simple "banning something only affects criminals" statement doesn't cover. If you do follow that logic all the way to the conclusion though, there should not be any bans on any weapons, people should be allowed to carry machine guns around out in the open into bars.

[Magic 8-Ball]

I disagree. Criminals are no less subject to cultural pressures than anyone else.  In fact a lot of them become criminals because they think it's cool.

If being a criminal is "the cool thing to do," then wouldn't they want to do something that is culturally unacceptable and illegal?  Wouldn't that kind of be the point?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is as much a problem with our media as it is anything else.  Studies have shown that the media's coverage of such things has grown significantly compared to their actual rates.  Why blame gun owners for something they can't control?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't doubt that.  Is the solution here to ban spray paint?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would wager that there was more going on in her head than "I accidentally killed my brother.  I shall bide my time and kill again."  Did she get psychiatric counseling as a child?  If not, that is a failing on her parents' part, not anyone else's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but are you going to tar and feather all gun owners because of this disturbed woman?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who said there's a very clear divide?  I'm saying those who commit crimes should be dealt with, not those who merely have the means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are the one who stumbled out of the gray area when you endorsed an all-out ban on such guns, no?  I'm fine with things like permits, registration, and strict laws regarding murder.

Owning and doing whatever you want are two different things.  You can drink alcohol, but you can't drunkenly commit manslaughter on the way home from the bar.

[Beet]

I disagree. Criminals are no less subject to cultural pressures than anyone else.  In fact a lot of them become criminals because they think it's cool.

If being a criminal is "the cool thing to do," then wouldn't they want to do something that is culturally unacceptable and illegal?  Wouldn't that kind of be the point?

No, you're over-thinking it. Being culturally acceptable is very closely related to being cool. The former is a prerequisite for the latter. So if criminality is culturally acceptable, it is cooler, and vice versa.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is as much a problem with our media as it is anything else.  Studies have shown that the media's coverage of such things has grown significantly compared to their actual rates.  Why blame gun owners for something they can't control?[/quote]

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just saying that mass shooters also respond to what they consider to be cool, and the large amount of coverage given to other mass shooters is one factor that inspires admiration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't doubt that.  Is the solution here to ban spray paint?[/quote]

No, that was another example of my original point-- the more a little criminality is accepted, the more likely people will turn to other forms of criminality. You're treating all my statements in isolation when there's an obvious relationship between them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would wager that there was more going on in her head than "I accidentally killed my brother.  I shall bide my time and kill again."  Did she get psychiatric counseling as a child?  If not, that is a failing on her parents' part, not anyone else's.[/quote]

I don't think we can speculate, but it also seems pretty obvious that the former incident is what influenced the latter incident. Once someone commits a crime once and gets away with it, they're much more likely to do it again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but are you going to tar and feather all gun owners because of this disturbed woman?[/quote]

I'm not even close to tarring and feathering anyone. All I'm saying is that there isn't always a clear line between criminals and innocents-- innocents can cross into being criminals based on circumstances, and vice versa.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The argument that "gun regulations will only affect law abiding citizens, not criminals" assumes that there is an immutable division between "law abiding citizens" and "criminals" when there is no such immutable division. Formerly law abiding citizens can cross into being criminals based on the circumstances, and vice versa.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I support the gray area. It's the argument that gun regulations are ineffective because they only affect "law abiding citizens" that is radical, because if you follow that line of argument to the logical conclusion, like I said, people should be able to drink at bars with machine guns on their lap.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, but you also can't drive drunk on the way home from the bar, even though you may be a law abiding citizens who never hurts anyone and drove drunk home from the bar without hitting anyone many times in the past. Just because you're innocent it doesn't mean that you can't endanger other people even if you don't intend to.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Since when does banning something make it culturally unacceptable and not "cool"? Is smoking marijuana not "cool" and culturally unacceptable in all circles? Is watching certain movies and playing certain video games in Australia considered not "cool" and culturally unacceptable? I doubt someone owning an import of Manhunt 2 in Australia is greatly going to shock anyone who hears of it. And I don't think I even need to explain the marijuana bit.

[Magic 8-Ball]

I disagree. Criminals are no less subject to cultural pressures than anyone else.  In fact a lot of them become criminals because they think it's cool.

If being a criminal is "the cool thing to do," then wouldn't they want to do something that is culturally unacceptable and illegal?  Wouldn't that kind of be the point?

No, you're over-thinking it. Being culturally acceptable is very closely related to being cool. The former is a prerequisite for the latter. So if criminality is culturally acceptable, it is cooler, and vice versa.

When are gun-related crimes socially acceptable?  And by which culture(s)?  America has a few.  I can't think of a culture in America where such a violation of the law is accepted.  Are all cultures to be punished because of a criminal one?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is as much a problem with our media as it is anything else.  Studies have shown that the media's coverage of such things has grown significantly compared to their actual rates.  Why blame gun owners for something they can't control?[/quote]

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just saying that mass shooters also respond to what they consider to be cool, and the large amount of coverage given to other mass shooters is one factor that inspires admiration.[/quote]

I'm saying that it's the media's fault for making mass shooters seem cool, and, if you want to dissuade mass shootings, that is a better place to start than Congress.

The implied 'you' was metaphorical.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't doubt that.  Is the solution here to ban spray paint?[/quote]

No, that was another example of my original point-- the more a little criminality is accepted, the more likely people will turn to other forms of criminality. You're treating all my statements in isolation when there's an obvious relationship between them.[/quote]

And my refutation is a continuation of mine. 

I suppose you wouldn't have been confused had I asked "would the best way to deter graffiti artists be to have the media make graffiti culturally unacceptable and have the police crack down on the artists or to have Congress ban spray paint?"  If your answer is not the latter, then why would banning certain guns be the panacea to mass shootings?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would wager that there was more going on in her head than "I accidentally killed my brother.  I shall bide my time and kill again."  Did she get psychiatric counseling as a child?  If not, that is a failing on her parents' part, not anyone else's.[/quote]

I don't think we can speculate, but it also seems pretty obvious that the former incident is what influenced the latter incident. Once someone commits a crime once and gets away with it, they're much more likely to do it again.[/quote]

And that would be the point of counseling...so she could get a grip on what was going on inside her.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but are you going to tar and feather all gun owners because of this disturbed woman?[/quote]

I'm not even close to tarring and feathering anyone. All I'm saying is that there isn't always a clear line between criminals and innocents-- innocents can cross into being criminals based on circumstances, and vice versa.[/quote]

I don't disagree.  All I'm saying is, if they cross that line, they probably aren't innocents and should be punished.  It's the act itself and its circumstances that I'm most concerned with, not how its carried out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The argument that "gun regulations will only affect law abiding citizens, not criminals" assumes that there is an immutable division between "law abiding citizens" and "criminals" when there is no such immutable division. Formerly law abiding citizens can cross into being criminals based on the circumstances, and vice versa.[/quote]

I haven't made that argument (and I'm unlikely to, as it's pretty dumb).  My argument is, and always has been, that you shouldn't punish everyone because of criminals.  Most people who buy a Desert Eagle do not do so to rob someone; they buy it for their collection or for use at a shooting range.

Those who use a Desert Eagle to rob or kill someone should be charged with armed robbery or murder, not "robbery or murder someone with a side of Desert Eagle."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I support the gray area. It's the argument that gun regulations are ineffective because they only affect "law abiding citizens" that is radical, because if you follow that line of argument to the logical conclusion, like I said, people should be able to drink at bars with machine guns on their lap.[/quote]

Then I'm not sure why you quoted Al's post, as it seems to me that it ignores lots of gray.

Either way, I more or less agree with the above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, but you also can't drive drunk on the way home from the bar, even though you may be a law abiding citizens who never hurts anyone and drove drunk home from the bar without hitting anyone many times in the past. Just because you're innocent it doesn't mean that you can't endanger other people even if you don't intend to.
[/quote][/quote]

Right, that is a fair restriction on the use of alcohol and cars.  It isn't a parallel to saying that handguns can be misused, therefore, they need to be banned.

[Beet]

When are gun-related crimes socially acceptable?  And by which culture(s)?  America has a few.  I can't think of a culture in America where such a violation of the law is accepted.  Are all cultures to be punished because of a criminal one?

The more guns are socially acceptable, the more people will have guns. Further, the more the carrying and use of guns in different places is socially acceptable, the more people will carry and use guns in different places. Then the likelier there is of gun crime or gun accidents. This is true for both criminal and non criminal subcultures, it doesn't really matter which. Not to say guns should be banned, but there should be a societal balance between how much prevalence we should allow guns to have vs. the safety of the public having an interest in guns not being ubitquitous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I'm saying it doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, the only reason I mentioned that example was to show that shooters are influenced by media portrayals. And that's important because it shows that a social cool factor can influence criminal thinking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the two examples are only analogous in the sense that in both cases, legal crackdowns on the margins of a criminal activity (graffiti in one case, or marginal gun regulations in another case) can affect the main criminal activity targeted (subway robberies in one case, gun violence in the other case).

In the analogy, washing away graffiti from subway trains is not the equivalent of banning certain guns. Instead, it is the equivalent of banning the carrying in restaurants of guns. Both graffiti and carrying guns in restaurants are nominally harmless activities. But each one is a "gateway" to the more serious type of crime. Graffiti on trains gives the impression that gangs "own" the area and gives them a reason to hang out near subway stations. Carrying guns in restaurants increase the risk that one will be used in a dispute, that one will be accidentally discharged while being shown, and that others will also carry weapons in response.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But counselling doesn't always work; and you don't always know when someone needs counselling. Her first shooting was ruled an accident, so the psychiatrists would not have known that she needed counselling for carrying out a successful murder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The notion that an act itself and the way its carried out can be strictly separated is another fallacy. The reason most people don't rob banks is because they don't have the means to carry it out. Give people the means, and they might do something they otherwise would never do. Guns make deadly violence easier, and so they also make deadly violence more likely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well sure, but then why are you responding to me? Because my entire point is just to refute that argument, as I clearly stated at the very beginning. If you're argument is just that the intent of most people that buy guns is innocent, that's obvious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I only quoted it because it brought in the notion of social acceptability/norms in response to Franzl's point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, again, I'm not saying they need to be banned, however they should be restricted.