Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back up a second…

Are you saying that you’re not going to respond because the man is dead?

White flag alert to the max!

🤣
 
That’s actually not legal. People who say they do that and admit are basically confessing to a crime.
 
SuperLuigi said:
That’s actually not legal. People who say they do that and admit are basically confessing to a crime.
Click to expand...
It’s not legal, but it’s almost impossible to catch unless you’re dumb enough to brag about it or show off the gun. It’s not like getting one that’s illegal federally into the country where you have to smuggle it past border control. All you have to do is put it in a box when you’re transporting it home. I can figure that out, but I probably wouldn’t know how to get a gun in from Mexico to the U.S.

And even then, it is legal to skip various background checks and such if you buy a gun in a state that doesn’t require those.

You’re never going to keep truly determined smart criminals from getting guns, but the question is what proportion of gun violence is performed by criminals with the intelligence and determination to do that.
 
DarkLight said:
No law works on everyone. It’s kind of like, when I worked retail, we had a lot of theft deterrents. Almost none of them would have worked on a determined professional thief. But we’d figured that most of the theft wasn’t done by determined professional thieves. It was done by opportunists who swiped what was fairly easily available.
Click to expand...
The idea that no law works for everyone is a good analysis. It’s actually a great reason for the #2A.
 
Last edited:
SuperLuigi said:
So in other words, the laws don’t work very well, do they?
Click to expand...
No law works on everyone. It’s kind of like, when I worked retail, we had a lot of theft deterrents. Almost none of them would have worked on a determined professional thief. But we’d figured that most of the theft wasn’t done by determined professional thieves. It was done by opportunists who swiped what was fairly easily available.

That’s the question with gun control - what percentage of gun violence is actually being done by career criminals who have the resources to smuggle guns in and the patience to do so? You’re not going to get all the guns away from everyone with ill intent, but you’ll still see a significant drop in gun violence if you have a significant reduction in the number of people who do have them. (The impact of firearm availability on completed suicides is also a consideration.)
 
SuperLuigi said:
Back up a second…

Are you saying that you’re not going to respond because the man is dead?
Click to expand...
I did not realize until just now that Rummel was dead. What I said was that he is not a poster here on CAF, so I cannot engage him in debate. If anyone wants to use his arguments in a debate here, they should make those arguments themselves, referring only to Rummel’s book for corroboration.
 
But (and I’m jumping in late, so this has probably already been brought up – sorry) Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States and one of the highest rates of gun violence. I honestly think that if more people were armed better, nobody would try anything because it’d basically be a permanent standoff. (See Switzerland.)

Frankly, I think that if someone is worked up enough to kill someone, they’re going to find a way to do it, whether by buying one illegally through whatever the replacement for SilkRoad is or a local arms dealer or by using a less conventional weapon like (these are all real) a fire extinguisher, nail gun, car, jar of pickles, or jump rope.

Killers will kill unless one of two things happens:
  1. They get killed or incapacitated in the attempt.
  2. They never get in the mindset or situation to try.
Which is (not the only reason) why I support the proliferation of lower-than-state institutions like churches, synagogues, men’s clubs, etc: because with no one to fall onto, you keep falling. It’s also why I support loosening gun regulations in general: because a well-armed populace is a self-regulated one.
 
If me getting profiled makes people safer, that’s fine.

Also, a lot of the concerns are more faux minority grievances.

Isreal profiles, and quite frankly, a lot of the folks against profiling had no problem referring to that country about its gays in the military policies…
 
XndrK said:
But (and I’m jumping in late, so this has probably already been brought up – sorry) Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States and one of the highest rates of gun violence. I honestly think that if more people were armed better, nobody would try anything because it’d basically be a permanent standoff. (See Switzerland.)
Click to expand...
That was actually my original point! The thing with Chicago is the gun laws are really strict, but the gun laws a state over aren’t very strict, and there’s no border controls between states. So what they’re finding is most of the guns they’re recovering in Chicago from crimes, came from other states where the gun controls are lower. It won’t work because it’s too easy to bring a gun in from the next state over and anyone with a functional brain can figure out how to get a gun home from another state.

The thing with gun control is I don’t think we’re aiming to stop all violent crime. I’d say what we’re aiming to do is:
(1) Reduce the number of criminals who have easy access to deadly weapons.
(2) Reduce the number of casualties a criminal can do before stopped.

But it’s always going to be a harm reduction scenario, not an elimination scenario. And of course it needs to be combined with other harm reduction measures (like the mental health care that gets repeated endlessly and no one ever does much about).
 
DarkLight:

.
But we’d figured that most of the theft wasn’t done by determined professional thieves. It was done by opportunists who swiped what was fairly easily available.
Click to expand...
.
Well it’s good you guys figured this out. (I assume this was more than mere conjecture and in some cases, the bad guys were actually caught).

So what did your boss do when they would catch embezzlers working there?

Did your boss fire or suspend the good employees?

Would YOU go after your “good guys” if YOU were the boss?

Would it be OK to ignore company protocol and dock pay from good honest employees if some merchandise “went missing”?
 
Last edited:
DarkLight said:
The thing with gun control is I don’t think we’re aiming to stop all violent crime. I’d say what we’re aiming to do is:

(1) Reduce the number of criminals who have easy access to deadly weapons.

(2) Reduce the number of casualties a criminal can do before stopped.

But it’s always going to be a harm reduction scenario, not an elimination scenario. And of course it needs to be combined with other harm reduction measures (like the mental health care that gets repeated endlessly and no one ever does much about).
Click to expand...
In the vast majority of gun crimes, the victim count has not increased because of increased magazine count.

However, if mass casualties is your goal, you will have extra magazines or speed loaders for your six shooter and do equal damage. Even the vegas shooter had multiple guns at the ready. He could have done significant damage with an equal number of bolt action hunting rifles. Not the same, but significant.

So your argument seems to boil down to trying to control the very rare incident like vegas, where the perp has many options that would still increase his lethality.
 
That was actually my original point! The thing with Chicago is the gun laws are really strict, but the gun laws a state over aren’t very strict, and there’s no border controls between states.
Click to expand...
Sure there are “border controls”. The “border controls” are “the law”. (No firearms purchases across state lines without an FFL in almost all instances).

But you mean “border checkpoints” I think. (Do you think we should now have border checkpoints DarkLight??)

But if the “bad guys” are willing to break the law NOW . . . WHY do you think yet just one more law will finally deliver mankind? (Or two more laws, or fifty more laws, or whatever)

Should we ADD other penalties to the “good guy” because of the “bad guy”?

How about fining the good guy for the rest of his life because of the bad guy and calling it something politically correct like “an ammo surtax”? Would that be a viable “solution” in your paradigm?

I mean we can make it harder on the law abiding citizens AND GROW GOVERNMENT at the same time with THIS “surtax”!
 
Last edited:
President Obama once was on 60 Minutes (if I recall correctly the interview was done while he was visiting Africa).

(I saw it on the computer as I do not have TV. The interview is probably still available too.)

Obama said: “Ideas are more powerful than guns”.

Given that and assuming he was correct, what kind of “mental health prohibitions” that we don’t already have in place, could be implemented against citizens who may or may not have ongoing mental health issues?

Would it not ALSO be appropriate to REMOVE these people from having the ability to VOTE?

After all, if “ideas” are MORE POWERFUL than guns, we don’t want these guys voting according to YOUR paradigm would we DarkLight?

Do you think President Obama’s (when he was President) guards took . . .

. . . “Firearms” to guard the president?
Or . . . “Ideas” to guard the President?
Or . . . Both?

Should we limit “ideas” to be within state lines too?

How about an “idea fine” (we can call it a surtax and make some “scratch” for the Government that we can use for department Conferences in Orlando, Florida every January and other “junkets” for us to enjoy at hard-working taxpayer expense).

Google . . .
Junket - an extravagant trip or celebration, in particular one enjoyed by a government official at public expense.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SuperLuigi:
So in other words, the laws don’t work very well, do they?

And yet, people want more of them.
Click to expand...
LeafbyNiggle:
Not more of the same. Better laws that might actually work.
Click to expand...
This is not a response to you here LeafbyNiggle. Just a musing by me . . . .

.
I just don’t understand the “need” for a new law concerning every problem.

And the U.S. Government is already so massively “larded up”.

WHY do this to the Government? (They are not up to the task of undertaking more and more all the time. It’s not good for them and it’s not good for us as citizens either)

Why think that they are up to the task of layer after unending layer of the blubber of new laws? At least without getting rid of the old rules and regulations.

The “war on poverty”? I can’t think of a segment of laws that have been a worse failure.

The American Indians seem to have a Federal Government program for just about everything. It has not helped them concerning poverty (and a host of other social woes seem to be magnified in the Indian Community with MORE Government intrusions).

I’m not saying the intentions were bad. I’m not even saying all Government spending to help those in poverty should cease. To be honest I don’t know what the answer is. But I’m pretty sure I know what the answer ISN’T.

The answer isn’t incessant growth of Government.

The “war on drugs”?

How is THAT one going?

We are just one more “law” away from utopia right?

Governmentzilla. Yep. That’ll save us.

Don’t get me wrong. We need Government. We need GOOD Governance. But the mindset of the need for new rules and regulations and laws with EVERY bad occurrances has not served the country well in my opinion.

Maybe a different approach to the “do something about this NOW” mentality should be replaced with let’s think, debate, carefully, slowly, cautiously proceed because even the best intended rules and regulations frequently have serious negative, unintended consequences.
 
Last edited:
The thing is you could apply this argument to literally any law. Why have laws at all? Bad guys are going to break the law anyway, so you’re just putting restrictions on the good guys.

The point I was making there was you can’t necessarily judge the effectiveness of national gun control laws by the effectiveness of local gun control laws, because of the ease of getting a gun across state lines is not comparable to the ease of getting one across national borders.
 
Amendment II
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii

Definition of militia

1 a :a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
b :a body of citizens organized for military service
2 :the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

mi•li•tia (mɪˈlɪʃ ə)

n.
  1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
  2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
  3. all able-bodied males eligible by law for military service.
  4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the Security of a free State…
 
Last edited:
Yeah, just remember that target is a creation of God. And i’m guessing if we were to compete at the gun range you’d be going home with no money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top