Alright, let's go ahead and talk about Obama's gun control proposals

[Jaden]

Personally, I think they're entirely fair, and I'm rather tired of hearing people throwing around terms like "fascist" and acting like it's the end of the world. It's basically an assault rifle ban and limiting gun purchases to guns with 10-round magazines, max. Why would any civilian ever need an assault rifle? Forget that - why would you even want an assault rifle?

Assault rifles are made for killing people. Not animals - people. They're not made for defense, they're made for attack. Hence the term ASSAULT RIFLE. Now, it's true, putting measures like this in place will not stop tragedy. Mental illness drove the guy who shot up Sandy Hook to do what he did, not guns. Fair enough. However, if I recall he was using a legally obtained assault rifle. LEt's say these measures were already in place. True, he could've illegally obtained an assault rifle, but let's face it, he almost certainly wouldn't have gone through the trouble, especially since the gun wasn't his, if I recall. So he most likely would've been using a handgun. It would have been tragic and horrible, but maybe 16 - 20 people could still have their lives today.

Supposition may not be the best argument, but that's my line of thinking. Yes, I understand that criminals could still get assault weapons, but it would be so much more difficult, and that could make all the difference.

And the whole thing about having guns to rebel against a tyrannical government? Neat idea. Two problems: it's a threat that you've totally invented. I don't buy crossbows that shoot wooden stakes because I don't anticipate a vampire uprising. Second, in the incredibly unlikely event that it's necessary, you'd be the fucking outlaws that you keep saying will get the guns regardless of the laws! GAAAAH!

This has been irritating me all day. My brother is posting shit on Facebook about how "America is choosing liberty over slavery," I'm being mocked for not seeing the big picture, but "of course, that's what they want," and I am just rather pissed off. Slavery? Are you serious? Do not compare your inability to buy an assault rifle with slavery. DO. NOT.

[Rageaholic]

Yeah, I don't understand why there's so much outrage over this. I've been dealing with people who I overwise respect making Obama out to be the next Hitler over the assault weapon ban. Not that I don't understand their arguements, but the way some of these people are acting is more scary than any "tyranical government".

[Nekojin]

First: "Assault Rifle" is a meaningless, loaded term. What, specifically, do you object to? Select-fire switches? Those are already banned, and have been for a long time. Most of the so-called "Assault Rifles" (as defined in the now-expired AWB) are precisely the same, mechanically, as "Hunting Rifles," with the only differences being cosmetic changes (or "furniture," as some people say).

Second: Very, very few crimes have been committed using rifle-type weapons. Pistols, carbines, and shotguns are much more common and popular.

However, if I recall he was using a legally obtained assault rifle.

Sure. His mother's, which he committed murder to obtain. Making it not a "legally-obtained" weapon, from his perspective. The point you're trying to make here is tenuous at best.

Yes, I understand that criminals could still get assault weapons, but it would be so much more difficult, and that could make all the difference.

"Could." You don't know. You're making hand-wavy suppositions. The facts support the idea that these nutcases will do whatever they can, and will still kill people. Can't get guns legally? Steal 'em. Can't get guns at all? Make bombs (see the Aurora shooter, who had wired his apartment). Can't get bombs? Try something else, like, say, a nailgun. Or just set an apartment bloc on fire.

The problem isn't the guns. Attempting to proceed as though it's been proven that less guns = less crime (which isn't even correlative, much less proven to be causative) is a fool's gambit.

Edit: And yes, there are some vocal whack-a-doodles out there that are getting far more bent out of shape than is reasonable or rational. The internet gives them a megaphone, and they're going to make sure everyone hears their drivel.

[Jaden]

Sure. His mother's, which he committed murder to obtain. Making it not a "legally-obtained" weapon, from his perspective. The point you're trying to make here is tenuous at best.

Yes, he took it from somebody else. I said that. But the other person legally obtained it. Had she not been able to legally obtain such a weapon, what would he have done then? Something, I'm sure. But it might not have been as devastating.

"Could." You don't know. You're making hand-wavy suppositions.

I already said I didn't know that and I framed that entire section by saying that it was supposition. I don't know why you're calling me out on something that I admitted from the start.

The facts support the idea that these nutcases will do whatever they can, and will still kill people. Can't get guns legally? Steal 'em. Can't get guns at all? Make bombs (see the Aurora shooter, who had wired his apartment). Can't get bombs? Try something else, like, say, a nailgun. Or just set an apartment bloc on fire.

The problem isn't the guns. Attempting to proceed as though it's been proven that less guns = less crime (which isn't even correlative, much less proven to be causative) is a fool's gambit.

I am well aware of the statistics and how less guns does not mean less crime. It may surprise you to learn this, but I am generally in favor of less gun control. I think people should be permitted to defend their homes and their families. Automatic assault weapons are not necessary to that end.

I am also well aware that the main problem here is a lack of proper mental health care, among other things. The gun violence and school shootings and such is merely a symptom. But while we're working on curing the disease, we should also curb the devastating effects the symptom has.

[TheHuckster]

There's a friend on Facebook who has been posting daily infographics and macros of cliches and mottos from libertarian and NRA groups, along with a ton of anecdotes about families saved by guns, and how gun control is going to spiral our country into dismay. It's reached the point of nausea for me.

...but even he admitted today that after reading Obama's list of new measures, he finds them perfectly reasonable, much more than he thought he would. Even the fact that it's an executive order, which was another major point of attack (one which I personally understand), didn't bother him as much.

[Nekojin]

Yes, he took it from somebody else. I said that. But the other person legally obtained it. Had she not been able to legally obtain such a weapon, what would he have done then? Something, I'm sure. But it might not have been as devastating.

Again with the supposition. Without access to guns, he could have, say, run down the corridors pouring gasoline, and set the entire school on fire. I'm quite certain that would have resulted in a higher body count. Children are more susceptible to smoke inhalation, for one.

I already said I didn't know that and I framed that entire section by saying that it was supposition. I don't know why you're calling me out on something that I admitted from the start.

Because you're using this supposition as a foundation for your argument, which is bad argumentation to start with. It doesn't matter that you called yourself out on it when it's a cornerstone of your point - you deserve to be called out on it.

I am well aware of the statistics and how less guns does not mean less crime. It may surprise you to learn this, but I am generally in favor of less gun control. I think people should be permitted to defend their homes and their families. Automatic assault weapons are not necessary to that end.

If fully automatic weapons are your concern, then mission accomplished - they're already illegal to own without a very difficult-to-acquire federal license (hint: federal security clearance is easier to get). So are select-fire weapons.

I am also well aware that the main problem here is a lack of proper mental health care, among other things. The gun violence and school shootings and such is merely a symptom. But while we're working on curing the disease, we should also curb the devastating effects the symptom has.

But you're not actually addressing a symptom. You're suggesting making grand, useless gestures that are actually statistically insignificant, even when talking narrowly about gun violence specifically. There hasn't been a rash of rifle killings, pretty much ever, let alone recently. There haven't been any cases where unusually-large magazines have resulted in a high death toll, while there have been cases (Virginia Tech, Columbine, Sandy Hook) where multiple weapons and/or multiple magazines have been employed. All of these are solutions in search of a problem, not something that would actually lower the frequency or severity of these rare events.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Again with the supposition. Without access to guns, he could have, say, run down the corridors pouring gasoline, and set the entire school on fire. I'm quite certain that would have resulted in a higher body count. Children are more susceptible to smoke inhalation, for one.

Actually that's wrong. He would've been stopped at the door by the three people he shot to get into the school in the first place. The only reason he got into that school was because he had guns to shoot his way in.

Sandy Hook had a pretty tight lock-down on the school once the day starts. Doors locked, people stationed at each door. You need to be cleared by the people at the door before you are allowed inside and must proceed immediately to the office.

However, as stated before, he shot the people stationed at the doors and waltzed in after to shoot more people up.

[Jaden]

Dude, I know this is a debate forum, and if you want to debate, cool, but that wasn't a major cornerstone of my argument. The entire reason why I was pointing out that it was supposition in my own post to begin with was to show that it was an illustration of my thought process, and not necessarily and meaningful entry into any proper debate on the subject.

The main argument I was making was that people were overreacting to what I perceive as very fair propositions. My argument for these propositions being fair was the fact that assault weapons aren't really needed by civilians, the arguments for "needing" them typically involve some sort of bizarre government takeover, and that it's really not worth acting like it makes Obama into Hitler.

I never said that these measures would eliminate gun violence. I said they might cut down the violence, hopefully.

The entire reason why I bracketed that middle paragraph as supposition which would make a poor argument was specifically so that it wouldn't be brought into the "debate" part of this topic, because this isn't a formal debate setting, and musing is allowed.

Geez, shows me for trying to show the thought process that could've gone behind these laws >_>

[Duelist925]

Again with the supposition. Without access to guns, he could have, say, run down the corridors pouring gasoline, and set the entire school on fire. I'm quite certain that would have resulted in a higher body count. Children are more susceptible to smoke inhalation, for one.

I would like to point out that its far easier to tackle someone running around with a gas can, than it is to take out someone who has a gun.

One can be subdued relatively easily.

The other cannot.

[mikoyan29]

There's a friend on Facebook who has been posting daily infographics and macros of cliches and mottos from libertarian and NRA groups, along with a ton of anecdotes about families saved by guns, and how gun control is going to spiral our country into dismay. It's reached the point of nausea for me.

...but even he admitted today that after reading Obama's list of new measures, he finds them perfectly reasonable, much more than he thought he would. Even the fact that it's an executive order, which was another major point of attack (one which I personally understand), didn't bother him as much.

But they aren't really executive orders, they are more like executive memos from what I've read.

[Nyoibo]

Just out of interest, would someone be able to post a link to what these measures Obama proposed are?

[Andara Bledin]

First, the OP:

To begin with, since it wasn't in the OP, here is a link to the actual plan (pdf).

Second, I don't find the "think of the children" approach to be appealing, and there is, honestly, too much focus on locking down our schools when we can't even keep them all staffed and maintained adequately. However, I can understand the focus based on it's ties to current events.

1) Background checks for all. How I feel about this would depend quite heavily on how onerous or otherwise the regulations become. If they become so onerous as to stifle the ability for the average citizen to purchase or sell a gun through legitimate channels, then it's a genuine problem. And while the reporting and information sharing is a good idea, it has to stay limited lest it run afoul of previous decisions regarding Constitutionality of aggregated ownership data.

2) Ban it, track it, research it, analyze it, protect it.
a) Ban it. Neither a ban on "assault" weapons nor a limit on magazine size will do anything to reduce gun-related crime or deaths; all they will do is waste money and provide a false sense of security. As for armor-piercing rounds, that they left such a loophole in the original ban is baffling.
b) Track it. Most of this makes sense and should probably be done regardless of whether crime is up or down (it's at record lows, by the way). The only issue would be to ensure that they don't run afoul of previous SCotUS decisions regarding the Constitutionality of collecting aggregated data.
c) Research it. While gaining more data and greater understanding is always a good thing, the stated focus is pointed at the same old tired suspects, most of which have been shown to have negative causal links.
d) Analyze it. This is something that is likely to make a notable difference, hopefully not at the cost of the rights of the patients involved.
e) Protect it. Education is good. Standards compliance is good. And in most cases, innovation is good.

3) Think of the children! One has to wonder, with the fact that our facilities are too small, and in some places dangerous in themselves, and while we can't afford to pay our teachers what they're worth, where are we going to get the funds to pay for tertiary personnel who do nothing to advance the education of the kids? The emergency planning and implementation and adjustment to a more productive disciplinary system, however, are good things.

4) To our health. Most of this is actually excellent. However I have to wonder where the funds are going to come from, particularly while the country still lacks even a budget.

Actually that's wrong. He would've been stopped at the door by the three people he shot to get into the school in the first place. The only reason he got into that school was because he had guns to shoot his way in.

No. We don't and can't know that.

Considering that the locked door was made of glass, I suspect that a bat would have been equally as effective in gaining entrance, particularly in the hands of an individual as reportedly angry as he was said to be. Plus, he wasn't confronted until after he had already gained entrance.

Also, even if he had been stopped at the school, that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have gone elsewhere and committed similar mayhem.

So many of these gun control arguments argue as though the events occur in a vacuum and that if they didn't have guns and/or couldn't get to the targets they ended up attacking that they would just give up and go away, which is not only wrong, but a dangerous way of thinking.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

No. We don't and can't know that.

Considering that the locked door was made of glass, I suspect that a bat would have been equally as effective in gaining entrance, particularly in the hands of an individual as reportedly angry as he was said to be. Plus, he wasn't confronted until after he had already gained entrance.

I agree with you largely, Andy, that many gun control methods are more about feeling safe than being safe. But I disagree with this.

The thing isn't that "Without guns, it'd never have happened." But it is much harder to kill 23 people over a large area without guns. If he'd had a bat, he might have been able to beat people to death with it. But it seems disingenous to me to act like he would have done it just as easily as if he wasn't armed with a gun.

The saying, after all, is that God made man and Colonel Colt made them equal. Yes, there are flaws with the saying, but there's some truth to it.

Even up to the 18th century, a gun was a very unreliable weapon. The reason that tactics in the 16th, 17th, and 18th century largely had a lot of guys marching in big lines at each-other is that the weapons they were holding were hard to shoot someone with.

The reason they were used anyway was that it was easier to train someone with a gun.

Guns aren't just point and shoot. But they are a lot simpler than other weapons.

I've never held a gun before. I've never even been in the room with someone holding a gun before. But I have reasonable faith in my ability that, if I had a couple hours to myself, I would be able to figure one out, and be able to hit targets that were reasonably close to me (let's say thirty-forty feet) with relative accuracy.

If I had a couple hours to myself, I don't think I could trust myself to have equivalent ability with a bow and arrow.

Please don't confuse this with my saying I could be an expert marksman in a couple hours. Compared to someone who's been around guns all their life, I would be far inferior.

What I'm getting at with this debate, here, is ease of use. You can kill twenty people with a baseball bat, but it's going to be longer and harder to do. And I think it's disingenuous to treat it otherwise, and to throw up our hands and say "Well, look, it could have happened anyway!"

It seems to me like someone says

"The Patriots wouldn't have won without Tom Brady"

And you're saying "You don't KNOW that! They could have the same record with Ryan Mallett!"

Hypothetically, yes. But it would have been less likely and harder to do.

[Nekojin]

It seems to me like someone says

"The Patriots wouldn't have won without Tom Brady"

And you're saying "You don't KNOW that! They could have the same record with Ryan Mallett!"

Hypothetically, yes. But it would have been less likely and harder to do.

You're kind of missing the point. Most of these spree shooters have been at least moderately intelligent individuals. Almost all of them have been shown, after the fact, to have spent many hours planning their assaults. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora in particular have shown a great deal of effort to avoid being caught and stopped until they were already well under weigh.

Take away the guns. You still have individuals with a will to destroy, to kill. And their plans would have been just as elaborate. Columbine and Aurora, in particular, should be lessons not in what happened, but what didn't happen. The Columbine kids had pipe bombs and extensive rigged explosives in the cafeteria, but they failed to detonate them mostly due to incompetence at bomb-building. The Aurora shooter wasn't incompetent, he just chose not to have his booby-trap go off - he explained that his apartment was trapped to the officers that confronted him. The joint squad of State and Federal bomb experts (!!!) spent hours disarming the bombs he had set up in his apartment, and they described it as some of the most sophisticated bomb-making they'd ever seen.

Throwing up a simple block as though it would have prevented the incident, or would have lessened the damage, is just blind faith, believing that this one solution would solve everything. But there isn't any evidence so far that it would solve anything.

[Hyena Dandy]

You're kind of missing the point. Most of these spree shooters have been at least moderately intelligent individuals. Almost all of them have been shown, after the fact, to have spent many hours planning their assaults. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora in particular have shown a great deal of effort to avoid being caught and stopped until they were already well under weigh.

Take away the guns. You still have individuals with a will to destroy, to kill. And their plans would have been just as elaborate. Columbine and Aurora, in particular, should be lessons not in what happened, but what didn't happen. The Columbine kids had pipe bombs and extensive rigged explosives in the cafeteria, but they failed to detonate them mostly due to incompetence at bomb-building. The Aurora shooter wasn't incompetent, he just chose not to have his booby-trap go off - he explained that his apartment was trapped to the officers that confronted him. The joint squad of State and Federal bomb experts (!!!) spent hours disarming the bombs he had set up in his apartment, and they described it as some of the most sophisticated bomb-making they'd ever seen.

Throwing up a simple block as though it would have prevented the incident, or would have lessened the damage, is just blind faith, believing that this one solution would solve everything. But there isn't any evidence so far that it would solve anything.

I didn't say it would have prevented the incident. I said it would have made it more difficult. I do think a lot of the proposals are not going to help. I also think the argument that it would have prevented nothing is also false. You just proved that in your argument. The kids at Columbine were incompetent at bomb making, and the Aurora shooter wasn't. Thus, if they used bombs instead of guns, the kids at columbine would have done less damage, and the Aurora shooter would have still killed a lot of people.

I'm honestly on your side that if we need to have laws, the laws need to make sense. I agree with the point, but I disagree with the argument.