The efficacy (or lack thereof) of Gun Control

[Cherico]

I think the USA, generally speaking, has a cultural problem that has manifested itself in the form of an inordinate number of firearm related crimes, including mass shootings.

[qupte]I have no conceptual objection to universal background checks, it's basically already the law outside of private sales, and provided a reasonable mechanism exists to carry out said checks, I don't see any issue with it.

Our ability to conduct up-to-date research on this matter is rather stupidly impaired, but the most recent study from 2004 indicated that around 20% of gun related crimes involved legally acquired guns. I'd imagine law enforcement's enhanced ability to trace guns to their owners would help solve and perhaps reduce these sorts of crimes in the first place.
[/QUOTE]


You want to know why gun crime in the us is so high.

There are two major factors the failed war on drugs, and the destruction of the family.

Then we get to an issue you havent brought up.

The police will not protect people from rioters, and violence in fact the supreme court determined that the police do not have a duty to protect. IF you paid any attention last year you should know damned well that when shit hits the fan the cops will gladly let the mob murder you and your entire family. The only one who can protect you and yours is yourself.


If you look at when prohibition ended violent crime cratered dispite the fact that this was in the middle of the depression why? Because black markets are inherently violent. As much as addiciton sucks our current policy on drugs has more or less wreaked both inner city and poor rural areas and made everything worse.

Then we get to the destruction of the family single mothers produce children that do worse then then children with two parents in pretty much every metric. Because raising children is fucking hard and doing it yourself is arrogant/stupid. The american family was destroyed by a litany of things from corrupt family courts, bad laws and repairing it will require that the government be taken out of peoples personal lives.

Because seriously god damned.

Getting rid of guns will not get rid of violence by the way, the british did it and it just resulted in people using knives, acid and other ways of hurting people.

 

[Scottty]

 

[bintananth]

This.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Gensui-kaigun-taishō Yamamoto Isoroku

 

[Scottty]

Sometimes, and this one of those times, it makes sense to take a step back and look at what this is really all about. Why do people want to have "gun control" at all?

From what I can see, it at best comes to a busybody mindset of "children shouldn't have dangerous toys" which refuses to treat people as responsible adults.
At worst - well, the demonic face behind the mask has been hiding itself a bit less of late - they want to be able to kill you, and you not to be able to defend yourself.

 

[bintananth]

Sometimes, and this one of those times, it makes sense to take a step back and look at what this is really all about. Why do people want to have "gun control" at all?

From what I can see, it at best comes to a busybody mindset of "children shouldn't have dangerous toys" which refuses to treat people as responsible adults.
At worst - well, the demonic face behind the mask has been hiding itself a bit less of late - they want to be able to kill you, and you not to be able to defend yourself.

Agreed.

I think gun control should be limited to "these weapons have absolutely no legitimate civilian use" and "these people shouldn't be allowed to touch the ones which do have legitimate civilian uses".

 

[Zachowon]

Agreed.

I think gun control should be limited to "these weapons have absolutely no legitimate civilian use" and "these people shouldn't be allowed to touch the ones which do have legitimate civilian uses".

What weapons have no civilian use?
I can find one for all of them

 

[bintananth]

What weapons have no civilian use?
I can find one for all of them

Atomic Bombs are just one example and I know enough that - with access to the right materials - I might be able make one if I wanted to.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Atomic Bombs are just one example and I know enough that - with access to the right materials - I might be able make one if I wanted to.

You mean civilian orion rocket propellant?

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

Atomic Bombs are just one example and I know enough that - with access to the right materials - I might be able make one if I wanted to.

They do have a civilian application: Namely keeping the state far far away from my property, for fear of reprisal.

 

[bintananth]

You mean civilian orion rocket propellant?

No, I mean something someone might actually be able to afford.

 

[Zachowon]

Atomic Bombs are just one example and I know enough that - with access to the right materials - I might be able make one if I wanted to.

It has a use.
To make sure I am left alone by the state or the enemy

 

[Morphic Tide]

They do have a civilian application: Namely keeping the state far far away from my property, for fear of reprisal.

This isn't really operable as things get... bad when you have a large number of actors able to independently threaten the state. "Warring States" problems, where the obviously-weak central government disintegrates and the other major powers compete to become the new central government.

The way around this is having the government hold a sizable plurality of force, but far from a majority or monopoly on it, wherein popular action is a very obvious threat of reprisal for general abuse of the citizenry. Things just don't work if "Lone Rich Asshole" is a valid opposition, because then a small handful of rich assholes can overthrow the government and make a new one without any need to respect any kind of autonomy from others.

Federalism and Feudalism both do a good job at hamstringing obnoxious central governments, working best when the central government is able to be overpowered by a fraction of the lower governing bodies, while rogue lower bodies can be dealt with by the central body. This creates a system that requires numerous defectors to overthrow as a whole, likely to verge on outright majority of all force available.

And if a cause gets the majority of force behind it... There's no recourse. They have the biggest stick. All the moralizing and government structure shenanigans are meant to minimize chances of anything having the majority of force.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

Why do people want to have "gun control" at all?

imo, it's an excuse.

• if "guns" are the problem then you don't need to change your actions.
• gun owners are a convenient scapegoat

 

[bintananth]

It has a use.
To make sure I am left alone by the state or the enemy

Legitimate Civilian use.

Saying, as a civilian, "I have a nuke" is practically asking everyone with any weapon whatsoever to come and kill you before you can detonate it.

If you do have one but don't tell everyone you have one? Why even bother because that nuke is not going to protect you from J. Random Twatwaffle.

 

[Captain X]

Take your "legitimate civilian use" and shove it.

 

[Zachowon]

Legitimate Civilian use.

Saying, as a civilian, "I have a nuke" is practically asking everyone with any weapon whatsoever to come and kill you before you can detonate it.

If you do have one but don't tell everyone you have one? Why even bother because that nuke is not going to protect you from J. Random Twatwaffle.

So...
I should let the government say if I can threaten them or not?
The nuke is to make sure people DONT try and kill me. Because doing so will just make me set my nuke to go off if I am ever killed. Dying of old age is diffremt, but killed.
So yeah.
I would rather have my legitimate reason for a nuke being it is my God given right

 

[Bacle]

Private nukes don't work because the cores decay and have to be refurbished periodically to make sure the cores are still able to achieve critical mass.

The machinery and tools needed to do that refurbising, as well as the base materials needed for it, are not really something civies have access to, or can be hidden in any meaningful way.

 

[Zachowon]

Private nukes don't work because the cores decay and have to be refurbished periodically to make sure the cores are still able to achieve critical mass.

The machinery and tools needed to do that refurbising, as well as the base materials needed for it, are not really something civies have access to, or can be hidden in any meaningful way.

Of course.
What is stopping me from owning a nuke should be this not the government saying no

 

[bintananth]

So...
I should let the government say if I can threaten them or not?
The nuke is to make sure people DONT try and kill me. Because doing so will just make me set my nuke to go off if I am ever killed. Dying of old age is diffremt, but killed.
So yeah.
I would rather have my legitimate reason for a nuke being it is my God given right

You're thinking in military terms, not civilian ones.

When I walk across the street at a crosswalk the only thing protecting me from an idiot running me over and killing me is a red lightbulb telling the people driving cars that they need to stop and wait.

 

[Bacle]

Of course.
What is stopping me from owning a nuke should be this not the government saying no

...eh, I disagree when it comes to nukes.

Normal guns do not have the issues with rads and persistent damage, even normal explosives or artillery do not have that issue.

Fissile material is a different beast than a 'firearm' of any caliber or size, because they can impact areas for decades to centuries, and just getting a nuke properly built results in a lot of hazardous waste no private citizen is equipped to handle.

I don't mind if civies can buy Hellfires or even reserve fleet ships, but nukes and fissile material are a different ballgame.