The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
[The Second Amendment] - What the Hell IS a militia!?
Posts
Also, only pot is outright illegal. The other two are just controlled substances.
Or am I thinking of opiates?
Bombs are banned and people still make those. It's illegal to build certain wifi devices but that hasn't stopped anybody. And you can build a zip gun, coil gun, all fairly easily.
I don't think it's possible two have two people in shooting range of one another in the Dakotas. They're the Wyomings of places that aren't Wyoming.
Guns are more difficult to produce than, say, alcohol or meth; your average suburban apartment dweller isn't going to make one in his kitchen, but it's not impossible to produce guns on a small scale using really common machining tools, the same tools used to make custom car parts, for instance.
If we imagine a hypothetical gun ban in the United States, I suspect most of the demand would be met by the diversion (theft or improper sale) of firearms meant for military or police work; or the smuggling of firearms from other countries. If that weren't enough to meet demand, I could imagine the emergence of an underground cottage industry of custom-built functional firearms.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Prison system, insufficient social safety net (eg: single moms in inner cities oft times have to let the neighborhood raise their kids since welfare isn't enough to get by without also working full time), lack of proper daycare facilities, institutional racism, etc, etc
For the scope of this thread I think the one that we should focus on is the prevalence of handguns. This is what separates us from Canada
...
No they aren't.
And really, coil guns are as easy to make as booze? I don't think there's anybody in moonshine states who knows what a coil is.
Right, I suspect that gun violence per capita is a function of total violence per capita, which is in turn largely a function of population density and economics.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, that's basically my stance. I'll add in that I think our culture glorifies violence far more than others, but that's a naive opinion with no stats to back it up.
Ah, yeah, those things too. Our prison system doesn't spit out rehabilitated people, which is honestly the only thing it should do (admittedly, in my rather unusual opinion).
California has that, the Dakotas don't. But then you have places like Mississippi and Sout Carolina that mess with that theory.
Rigorous Scholarship
I'm pretty sure we have laws governing explosives and that if I set-me-up-the-bomb in my apartment and the authorities found out it wouldn't end well.
And while a hick might not be able to build a coil gun, that isn't stopping the numerous people who do know how from selling them and making a tidy profit on the black market. Zip guns however are extremely easy to make.
Depends on who's making them. And you can still whip up a scatter gun (think shotgun) rather easily.
The issue with zip guns is that, depending on how makes them, they can be dangerous to the user as well.
Well yea our prison system is nakedly about punishment not about rehab. Seriously it's retarded as shit, then when you can't get out you cannot get a job or vote or anything - guess where that leaves you.
Choice between homelessness or hey that guy across the street has some nice things and I got a gun...
Yes, just like not being able to buy alcohol if you're under 21 has totally worked at keeping high schoolers and college kids from drinking. They're not able to buy it, and I would wager 99% aren't making homemade moonshine.
The root is largely urban poverty stemming from failed social policies and the legacies of a large scale slave population and subsequent discrimination. In cities without a large minority underclass, you see crime rates largely the same as European cities. Which is sad, but not something that firearm regulation is likely to effect.
The two are completely different.
Trying to smuggle guns into the US would be like smuggling cocaine into Columbia. All the guns being smuggled in at least North and Central America are being smuggled out of the US, so that a whole new intercontinental smuggling operation would be needed to get guns anywhere near the US.
Without going into too much detail, gun barrel drilling requires precise equipment, but we're not talking about something that takes billions of dollars to set up. There are already professional machinists who bore rifled barrels for custom gun kits, and that equipment and expertise isn't going to suddenly go away.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
canada has basically the same media that we do. they drink more and i believe use more drugs. they get US TV and advertising and movies etc. there's no real social reason that i can think of that makes americans extraordinary in any way, socially.
canada has stronger registration regulations and tracking on guns though, IIRC. there isn't really the option to go to a gun show and load up on stuff and then resell it out of the back of your car in the next province.
The correlation is there because they are so similar. In fact, they're regulated by the same agency.
When alcohol was banned that backfired completely and we then had a massive boom in illegal alcohol. Drugs were banned and look at how that ended up. It would be really interesting to see what sort of operations popped up in the event of a gun ban.
Regulation guns is entirely different than banning alcohol, or drugs.
Regulation does not seek to remove something from access, bans do.
And I was unaware the DEA also did arms enforcement, thanks for the info.
I still feel like they are, though. I mean, it's not just Canada's murder rate that's lower. Even things that have little at all to do with guns are much better. The Wikipedia page on rape statistics, for examples, puts the US at about 29 recorded rapes/100,000 people per year in 2008 and 2009. Canada? They're steady at about 1.5. There's got to be SOMETHING different about the nations, and I don't think having more guns is what's causing the twenty-fold increase in rape.
Its worth noting that alcohol use itself did not really increase during prohibition.
They have no capacity for scale, though, and I doubt many of them are the types of backwoods hicks who usually produce contraband. Really, we're not going to see MIT grads producing illegal anything.
ATF, actually.
I disagree, naturally, in that if we're regulating guns because they are so deadly, why not regulate other things that are as deadly. Alcohol is a great example of this, in that it is possibly even more widespread than firearms. Causes arguably as many deaths, and is even easier for a minor to access. If I were to propose regulating what alcohol an adult over 21 could buy, how much they could have in their home at one time, and what quantities they could buy that would be assuming that I knew better than that individual and they were not capable of using it in a responsible manner.
If we're truly interested in the good of our society, I think, why stop at guns? Unless regulating guns is motivated more out of fear of guns rather than genuine interest in a better society.
In reality, most people are capable of enjoying alcohol in a responsible manner that can contribute to their personal enjoyment. Just like firearms. There are a few rotten apples, and people who use both irresponsibly that lead to death and injury. I think if you heavily regulate one, do the same for the other. Same principle.
Why wouldn't MIT grads do so? I mean when there is an economic incentive to do some activity, generally people will start doing that activity. Guns aren't some special snowflake. In addition information isn't that hard to flow out and the capital used in firearm production isn't exotic or hard to acquire.
I think you are really underestimating how sophisticated black and grey markets can become. I'd guess this is because the United States has an extremely low portion of its economic activity involved in the black market, even taking into account the illegal drug trade.
Umm.....We do regulate alcohol. Pointing out that alcohol might need more regulation is a red herring, and has nothing to do with the merit of gun control. And your slippery slope doesn't invalidate the point.
I mean, objectively speaking both guns and alcohol are a detriment to society. Far more people use alcohol in a way that harms their body than in a way that benefits, and statistically speaking concealed carriers and other gun owners are worse off WRT violent crime. Any benefits to either are outside of the statistics.
Hell, poking around Google, I'm finding they're even in the same ballpark for deaths caused per year. And smoking crushes both by an order of magnitude.
So a gap in opinion between alcohol regulation and gun regulation seems a bit irrational to me, albeit understandable.
Personally I'm not a fan of alcohol or guns as they exist now, and would like both better regulated. That said, I think people have a right to drink responsibly, and to own guns responsibly (that including concealed carry).
I shall point everyone to Presser vs. Illinois.
It clearly states that Congress does not have the ability to regulate and limit arms in any way, but it leaves it up to state and local governments. It basically said this was not a federal government issue, as the Second Amendment was written for States. I don't have the time to respond to everyone, but a lot of people make great great points.
Again, this is not a debate about why violence happens, though I don't believe banning guns solves the underlying reason why violence occurs so often, but I do admit that, in my opinion, I think it comes with less gun related deaths. I hope we can all stick closely to the topic and discussing the court and its opinion. I'd especially enjoy someone to bring up the Miller case as well as the Heller case.
3DSFF: 5026-4429-6577
That case was just overturned (or eviscerated) by McDonald v. Chicago. Which held that the 2nd amendment is incorporated by the 14th amendment to apply to the states as well. So they don't have as much authority to regulate guns as they did under Presser.
No it's really a terrible comparison.
You can't fucking make a glock in your bathtub like you can alcohol, homemade guns are shit unless you're a professional. If every handgun manufactured in the US was tightly controlled and massive efforts were made to remove existing handguns (gun buys are fairly successful) it would have a pretty decent impact.
Note that I said impact not solution - you cannot pull a Japan unless you abolish the fourth amendment in the US, but I honestly believe controlling handguns is an extremely worthwhile endeavor.
Its important to note that every facet of the Constitution is deep with compromise between the founders. Por ejemplo, Jefferson wanted a ban on standing armies outside of wartime. It was one of the things that he said had to be in the final draft or else he would urge Virginia to not accept it. A lot of the other founders also were against the idea of the government having a standing army. However, this was compromised into what is now known as the second amendment.
Imagine how different things wouldve been if we had Jefferson's original vision. Our government would be SO MUCH SMALLER. A radically different foreign policy. We may or may not have actually banned guns, or at least it wouldve been more tolerable to pass gun control. Though how we could've waged an arms race/cold war in that case is a bit of mystery.
The guy in the hut in Pakistan was making rifles, which aren't anywhere near as reliable as the factory made ones (despite the man's claim), not semi-auto handguns which are a bit more difficult to self manufacture
I mean I realize people here are arguing just for the sake of argument but do you really believe the crips are going to open a garage pistol manufacturing facility or something? Why haven't the cartels in Mexico done that, why do they keep coming to the US to buy guns?
It should also be noted that the operation they have going in Pakistan to make AK-47/M-16/Etc knockoffs is an extremely rare one pulled off by people who have been doing that for decades as well. I mean we're not talking unskilled labor here.
Works for Australia. And 31 other countries according to Wikipedia.
Yes, the fact that Americans have so many guns and are willing to use them on each other is disturbing, but as whole, as someone else pointed out, it's not the guns, it's us.
The guy who shot the congresswoman was clearly deranged. Is it known how he got the gun? I just think something simple like a more extensive background check is required. Or if you want to get more restrictive, this guy was known to law enforcement as someone who was mentally out there, would it be too much to say if it becomes known that you have any sort of mental illness, you give up your right to own weapons? and be subject to a search and seizure?
On the other hand, I'm also of the opinion that the state of mental health care is horrible. The guy was a nutbag and he wasn't getting any help.
I just don't think it's any one thing. Sure I'm all for requiring some sort of education/testing for firearms ownership. Something that would not be an obstacle to people of sound mind and body, but would weed out people with criminal or mental health issues. But to say that weapons are the sole reason why shit like this happens is very disingenuous.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!