GunControlWorld: reloaded

[Maes]

I'm honestly curious what kinds and flavours of gun control advocates there are out there. More precisely, how the various proponents envision gun control, and what the "spectrum" of strictness, laxness, idealism, realism etc. is.

For example, by "gun control", are there really people who hope for a complete and total abolishing of all kinds of (man made) weapons, as in, they all magically cease to exist, along with the knowledge on how to make them? And while we're at it, end violence and wars altogether?

Are most of them more realistic, and simply ask for a stricter control by part of the state? What degree of gun ownership by private citizens would they tolerate? E.g. US-like lax? Full of red tape which would make it nearly impossible? Should only the state be allowed to have weapons of any kind?

What is the relationship between gun control and anti-hunting advocacy? Can one be a proponent for stricter gun control AND support hunting at the same time? Or are those two things almost always negatively correlated? Is hunting something to abolish together with private gun ownership, war, violence etc.?

[Egregor]

You should have to take a safety test to get a gun license, you know, like a car.

[fraggle]

[GreyGhost]

Getting the firearms genie back in its bottle won't be easy, but a good starting point would be to keep them out of reach of infants.

[Maes]

I'm really trying to understand the point of view of gun control advocates, but mentioning a "firearms genie" reminded me of something else: ever since the invention of firearms, and their first use in battlefield, there were those that called them "unfair", "evil", "cowardly" weapons "without honor", and called for a ban on them on chivalry grounds. We all know that didn't exactly stop their proliferation.

So that part of the "genie" (firearms as a technology) is definitively not going back into its bottle, not any more than the atomic bomb or the intercontinental ballistic missile can.

Regarding their possession, in the past things were somewhat simpler: while nobles, dukes etc. of course frowned upon peasants owning firearms, they were primitive enough that a single peasant couldn't do much (you needed a trained army of firearm-bearing soldiers, for them to be effective in an actual battle). So a peasant keeping e.g. a blunderbuss hidden in his hut wasn't much of a threat...though 1000s of peasants could become a concern, in case of a revolt.

But today, exactly what are gun control advocates hoping for? Completely disarming the "peasants", so that only "the King's soldiers" have access to firearms, so to speak? Obviously we can't go back to pikes...and even then, the King's soldiers would have better pikes than the peasants.

[sheridan]

I'm against gun control, not because I'm for violence, but because I recognize gun control doesn't actually control anything.

[dg93]

I'm against gun control. I advocate the right of self defense.

[dew]

GreyGhost said:

Getting the firearms genie back in its bottle won't be easy, but a good starting point would be to keep them out of reach of infants.

Gun advocates: please rebuff these lyrics. I mean truth bombs.

[Obsidian]

I advocate the right for self-defence with katanas. Katanas are bitchin' and are more difficult for kids to use by accident.

[dg93]

Obsidian said:

I advocate the right for self-defence with katanas. Katanas are bitchin' and are more difficult for kids to use by accident.

Don't bring a katana to a gun fight ;)

[Obsidian]

the_miano said:

Don't bring a katana to a gun fight ;)

I still would.

[sheridan]

the_miano said:

Don't bring a katana to a gun fight ;)

Why not, that's the perfect way to get any good anime started.

[dg93]

Obsidian said:

I still would.

Damn, that's ballsy.

[Mr. Freeze]

I'm very pro-gun, but the Sandy Hook shooting made me rethink my positions over. I haven't changed much, but I strongly advocate background checks, licenses and renewals (like a car license renewal). On top of that, if our mental health care funding was increased we'd be able to treat and keep away psychos like Adam Lanza.

[sheridan]

Mr. Freeze said:

I strongly advocate background checks

Background checks (and licenses, for that matter) are easily avoided via straw purchases. That's how Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold got their guns. They weren't old enough to buy them themselves so they had friends buy their guns for them.

[Jonathan]

If you're "honestly curious" about gun control proposals, why didn't you begin by researching the proposals of gun control advocacy groups? The Wikipedia category on Gun control advocacy groups in the United States or some of the advocacy group's own websites would seem like far more obvious places to start investigating this topic than a Doomworld forums thread.

I'm not sure what you expected to achieve by posting this thread? Are you too lazy to do the research yourself, and want to others to do it for you? Are you just looking for a chance to engage in lazy pontification and receive validation on your views from like-minded posters? Are you just looking to start an argument?

[geekmarine]

I'm for some measures of gun control, not necessarily outright banning, but I do believe there should be more restrictions on who is allowed to own a firearm. Yes, there will always be loopholes, but stricter background checks and training requirements might deter at least some people who shouldn't be owning guns in the first place. Surely there must be a way to allow responsible people to legally own guns while keeping them out of the hands of people who may be irresponsible or unstable. But mostly, I'd have to say I'm on the same page of Mr. Freeze - what we really need, more than gun control, is more effective identification and treatment of mental illness. Too many people with severe mental illness slip through the cracks, and making sure that didn't happen would help greatly.

[Doominator2]

I'm fine with self defense, sure if some guy is putting your life in danger then its acceptable as a human instinct to defend your self. Most use a pistol and the hicks would use a shotgun, or at least that's what would make some sense.

However, it doesn't make sense when you use a SAW(Squad Automatic Weapon, not the tool or the movie) and even flamethrowers to defend your self from an intruder or encounters in an alley.

[sheridan]

Jonathan said:

However, it doesn't make sense when you use a SAW(Squad Automatic Weapon, not the tool or the movie) and even flamethrowers to defend your self from an intruder or encounters in an alley.

Do you really think it's necessary to make flamethrowers expressly illegal though when nobody actually uses them for this? I mean, they sound highly impractical anyway. They're so heavy you wouldn't even want to carry them with you every time you go out, and even if you were just defending yourself at home there'd be a gigantic risk of destroying your own property before you managed to finish "defending" yourself, haha.

The same can mostly be said of the SAW, though the chance for destruction of property is quite a bit lower there of course.

Jonathan said:

I'm not sure what you expected to achieve by posting this thread? Are you too lazy to do the research yourself, and want to others to do it for you? Are you just looking for a chance to engage in lazy pontification and receive validation on your views from like-minded posters? Are you just looking to start an argument?

Not speaking for anybody here obviously, but I got the impression OP is just bored and looking for something to talk about. So probably reason number two or three, whichever comes first. :p

[CorSair]

This nonsense again?

[june gloom]

I'm somewhat for (responsible!) gun control and a fundamental sea change in the US gun culture. This includes putting a stop to entitled douchebags who carry assault rifles on their backs in public places because they think it's an effective political statement that doesn't just make them look like self-absorbed assholes.

(I say this as someone who likes guns from an aesthetics standpoint -- hard not to when you play so many games that use guns!)

I also feel like ending the drug war and putting more resources into helping disadvantaged youth in urban areas (which would keep them out of gangs) would both do a lot more to end gun violence than a mere gun ban. Pity the cops don't want either of that to happen -- they like their toys and targets.

[Gez]

Egregor said:

You should have to take a safety test to get a gun license, you know, like a car.

This, basically.


Also Americans need to stop thinking that gun ownership is an inalienable human right situated somewhere between "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness".

[june gloom]

That's what I mean about US gun culture. It's ingrained in us due to the nation's revolutionary and frontier history and a mythologizing of firearms. That's not something you can easily reverse.

There's a lot of debate about the exact meaning of the 2nd amendment to the constitution, too. Some argue that it applies strictly to "a well-regulated militia" (and there's argument over what that means, too.)

[printz]

I find firearms totally useless for my day-to-day life and I hope they stay out of the casual life, i.e. they have no business being available in grocery stores and supermarkets, or in general in stores that don't serve a specific customer base.

Just because we love sci-fi action cartoons, movies, games and like pretending we're shooting each other, doesn't mean we need the real thing as a liability.

A world where I have to defend myself with guns against authorities and free-running muggers is not one I want to live in, but one I may happen to get into should the problem arise. In that case, I hope the smugglers will be available. But not now.

[ducon]

In France, we have gun control and you know what? We have less crimes and murders than in the US. In Canada, they own as many guns than in the US and you know what? They have less crimes and murders than in the US.
The problem with guns in the US is that the US people still live in the Far west/frontier mythology. It’s over, guys.

[Gez]

People who think they need to have guns so as to overcome the US government should it become tyrannical need to pay a close look at the kind of wars the USA have been fighting over the last decade... Counter insurgency through the use of air power.

It's not very efficient at actually getting rid of the insurgency. But said insurgency is even less efficient at fighting back against the US bombers and drones. If you think you need weapons to fight back against the gobmint, it's not a gun you need, it's a SAM. I've heard that you can easily find them in eastern Ukraine nowadays...

[Graf Zahl]

Egregor said:

You should have to take a safety test to get a gun license, you know, like a car.

It'd be a good start at least to ensure that only responsible people own guns.

On the other hand: Why would responsible people even NEED guns if they could be kept out of irresponsible people's hands?

The big issue here is that the pro-gun camp's reasons for owning guns are a direct result of the lax gun control laws so it's all a self-perpetuating conundrum.

[MajorRawne]

I live in a country where firearms are tightly controlled, and I don't live in constant fear of death or feel I need a firearm to defend myself or my family. And that is the difference between Britain and America, no offence!

[hardcore_gamer]

Graf Zahl said:

It'd be a good start at least to ensure that only responsible people own guns.

On the other hand: Why would responsible people even NEED guns if they could be kept out of irresponsible people's hands?

The big issue here is that the pro-gun camp's reasons for owning guns are a direct result of the lax gun control laws so it's all a self-perpetuating conundrum.

I am not from the US but...if the US very harsh war on drugs has failed and it appears to be impossible to keep drugs out of peoples hands, why does the same not apply to guns? I find it amusing that many liberals denounce the war on drugs as a failure and say that you just can't prevent drugs from getting into the hands of those who want it, and yet say at the same time that if gun control is strict enough you can get rid of guns. Though this applies also to your conservatives in the other direction.

[FireFish]

As an outsider this entire gun control ordeal strikes me as odd. But honestly, if somebody wants a gun they will get it and use it. Last year they shot a few Jews in Brussels while guns are banned from the streets and impractical to legally own as the license is not just a give away. (the interest is really low too.) The other question one could ask however ; how do you make sure somebody is fit to own a gun ?