If Gun Control Actually Worked [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : If Gun Control Actually Worked


John Rambo
12-22-2012, 22:30
Would you be for it?

Fiery Red XIII
12-22-2012, 22:34
Define gun control...hitting your target works...

Red

Gonzoso
12-22-2012, 22:35
You mean if a magic fairy went around and took all the guns from the criminals, and the pawns of the government who sought to impose the will of those with money and power on common folk? Basically if there were no guns at all?

That would be cool, but there would also have to be no bombs, chemical weapons, nukes etc.

I would love to live in a world where no one killed each other and everyone lived in harmony.

John Rambo
12-22-2012, 22:37
Define gun control...hitting your target works...

Red

Gun Control:
Legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and other unfit operators who would be likely to use them with negligence or malevolence.

If this legislation would be passed in a way that actually works (and, in time, it likely will be able to as technology progresses, but not today), would you be okay with it? Remember, it would still be infringing upon our 2nd amendment as most of us see it, however...it would work.

Rabbi
12-22-2012, 22:38
You have to define "worked." What is the exact metric(s)? How are we going to quantify those specifics?

For example, if we take away all green guns, and we end up with a the crime rate using green guns going to zero, did gun control work? Yes, it did but what does that data point mean?

What if we design controls that do eliminate mass shootings but drive bys go up? Did we solve a problem or create one? Is there a large enough data set to extrapolate meaningful statistical trends?...and so on and so forth....

Math is a mother like that.

Rabbi
12-22-2012, 22:40
Gun Control:
Legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and other unfit operators who would be likely to use them with negligence or malevolence.

You will have a very difficult time trying to explain how this is not exactly what we currently have.

John Rambo
12-22-2012, 22:41
You will have a very difficult time trying to explain how this is not exactly what we currently have.

No, I won't.

What we currently have doesn't work. The 'gun control' we have accomplishes damn near nothing. The 'gun control' the gun-grabbers propose accomplishes nothing. Its useless.

Caver 60
12-22-2012, 22:48
Lets see. Suppose we could wave a magic wand and all the guns in the world suddenly disappeared. How do we get the knowledge of how to build one out of peoples minds? I'd build one, then I'd have the only one in the world. It's not that hard to build one.

Do we wave the magic wand again to remove that knowledge of how to build one from peoples minds? Why not just wave that magic wand and remove the propensity for violence from the mind of everyone?

If only.

Sigh.

Jgriggs
12-22-2012, 22:53
Maybe I'm just being stubborn, or obtuse. Maybe a little of both, but rather than sitting here daydreaming of the day "gun control" worked, I'd rather daydream about the day that people simply don't kill each other.

I'd be OK giving the worst member of society a full auto M2, as long as that person never considered killing another person with it.
I know crazy talk, it'll never happen, so whats the point of the dreaming.

For a more realistic answer to the question, we already have plenty of gun control measures.
It is illegal to kill a person.
It is illegal to use a gun in the commission of a crime. (aside from the illegality of the crime.)
It is illegal to brandish a weapon.
It is illegal to threaten another person with a weapon.
It is illegal to posses a weapon if it is illegal for you to posses a firearm. (again, this is a matter of illegal to break the law law)
In CT, it was illegal for him to be in possession of the two handguns. (under age)
It was illegal for him to steal those guns.
It was illegal for him to enter school property with those guns
It was no doubt illegal to discharge those firearms within city limits
It was illegal to discharge them in a negligent manner, meaning one that caused harm to others.



The list goes on and on, Would I be in favor of more???
Hell no.

RWBlue
12-22-2012, 22:56
Would you be for it?

Isn't this kind of like asking another guy, "if you were gay would you let me bend you over and .... you"?

We know gun control doesn't solve the issue of violence.
We know that gun control leads to governments doing honorable things to it's citizens.

Rabbi
12-22-2012, 23:03
No, I won't.

What we currently have doesn't work. The 'gun control' we have accomplishes damn near nothing. The 'gun control' the gun-grabbers propose accomplishes nothing. Its useless.

You didnt do it.

Again, your definition is exactly what we have...even if it isnt to your liking or standards.

UtahIrishman
12-22-2012, 23:50
I don't know of any gun control that works...other than hitting your target.

This is a what if fantasy. I wish it was possible for everyone to live in harmony and no one gets killed on purpose. But that simply won't ever come to pass. The world is made up of humans not angels.

There are no clean cut answers. Something we can point to and say here is the answer. Let's apply this and fix things. And that's what the anti's want. They want a nice clean fix that will bring about a utopian fantasy where everything is OK.

Well...nothing is ever OK.

Magnus2131
12-23-2012, 00:00
Like most liberals, you live in a fantasy world.

certifiedfunds
12-23-2012, 00:16
No because if some dude breaks into my house and threatens my family with a knife or a club I want to be able to shoot him, not battle him with my own knife or club.

cowboy1964
12-23-2012, 00:21
More people are killed every year by hands, feet, and fists than by long guns. Just for example.

So, no.

GRIMLET
12-23-2012, 01:19
Would you be for it?

Are you serious.......??????

No.

mymini40
12-23-2012, 01:26
The problem really is not only about guns in criminal hands but also guns in the hands of the looney tunes and theyre even worst.

BobbyT
12-23-2012, 01:33
If SPEECH control actually worked, would you be in favor of it?

If any form of "we know better what's good for you", well-intentioned benevolent dictatorship actually didn't result in disaster for once, would that justify it?

Thanks, but I'll keep my individual rights and freedoms, and accept that bad things sometimes happen.

DJ Niner
12-23-2012, 03:15
If the lefty/libs could ever come up with a spot where gun control DOES work, then we could let the market decide. If certain folks valued a small increase in safety from one specific type of threat, balanced against the freedoms/liberties they'd have to give up to maintain that type of environment (such as constant no-notice personal/vehicle/home searches to find illegal guns), then they'd happily move there.

Until they can find somewhere that has figured out how to implement strict gun control without alienating the majority of their population, it's a fantasy question.

RyanBDawg
12-23-2012, 03:17
Sure, if you could invent some device that changes human nature to have no element of evil in it.

coqui33
12-23-2012, 04:05
http://backintyme.com/ccwimages/fists.jpg

Flying-Dutchman
12-23-2012, 04:45
Criminals knowing they will be confronted by an armed citizen if they rob or burglarize has done much to prevent crime.

So no, disarming everyone would allow criminals to break in, beat and rob the weak with impunity.

With 300 million firearms in private hands already (that will last generations with proper care), disarming is not going to happen and any ban would work as well as Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

lunarspeak
12-23-2012, 05:54
Criminals knowing they will be confronted by an armed citizen if they rob or burglarize has done much to prevent crime.

So no, disarming everyone would allow criminals to break in, beat and rob the weak with impunity.

With 300 million firearms in private hands already (that will last generations with proper care), disarming is not going to happen and any ban would work as well as Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

the 300 million in hand aint nothing...how about all the guns peopel will make in thier garage or shops...how about all the ones from cananda or mexico or cuba ...if ALL guns were banned the black market for firearms would explode. can drug dogs smell out guns or hi-cap mags ?????

Ati058
12-23-2012, 06:23
The US Constitution, Second Amendment, Right to Bear Arms protects us against the tyranny of Statis, Progressives, Socialists, Communists and Dictators with unchallengeable powers to rule over their subjects. So NO, I would not be forů

Bruce M
12-23-2012, 06:23
It is certainly one of the better questions in a while.

Ati058
12-23-2012, 06:29
Prohibition! Because it worked so well the last time. :faint:

barbedwiresmile
12-23-2012, 06:31
To answer the OP, no. Because the question implies that people keep guns to defend themselves against aggressors with guns. That is not the case. I don't want to be attacked by someone with a knife or a club and be forced to defend myself with a knife or a club. And I certainly don't want my wife, sister, or mother in that position. Which, btw, is the position many woman are in in the UK - poster boy nation of 'gun control'.

gwalchmai
12-23-2012, 07:02
Would you be for it?Define it.

Baba Louie
12-23-2012, 07:06
Prohibition! Because it worked so well the last time. :faint:There it is!

Sharp steel control? Rock or Stick Control next? Criminal Control? Pre-Crime Control? Color of skin/ethnic group or political party/religious affiliation Control?

A legal tool to tack on extra penalties when violence is used Control? :dunno:

Or Freedom/free will? They all have their flaws and warts, pluses and minuses and someone will always abuse whatever "common sense" laws the rest of the community agree to abide by.

People Control. Some need it. Some don't. Most of the problem stems of course from brown eyed humans as they enjoy the majority of the worlds population. Perhaps we should eliminate the... naaaah. :supergrin:

RonS
12-23-2012, 08:32
I so wish all the gun banners could be sent back in time to before the invention of gunpowder to live in peace and harmony when there was no violence. I'm thinking Carthage in 145 BC or perhaps Constantinople in 1182 would be good destinations.

Kingarthurhk
12-23-2012, 08:48
Simplistically gun control does work:

1. Grip
2. Sight alignment
3. Trigger control

It's all the gun control I need.

MtBaldy
12-23-2012, 09:16
It doesn't and it will never work so your question is moot. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law. They would see banning and confiscating all guns as a good thing. Even if you confiscate all civilian guns, close down all domestic manufacturers, and somehow keep foreign guns from being smuggled in, criminals will still get guns. A competent machinist in a well equipped machine shop can make a serviceable gun with some raw materials and a set of plans.

ICARRY2
12-23-2012, 09:26
Gun control can never prevent all violent crime.

You will still have very large physically strong men who dont care about anyone but themselves, who will still commit rape, assault, robbery and murder because the victim has no effective means to protect themself.

Taking away all guns might stop all crime with a gun, but it wont stop all crime.

Dispairity of force will still be an issue.

bobtheelf
12-23-2012, 09:54
Shockoe Bottom Assault and Robbery Video Taped by Assailants - YouTube

John Rambo
12-23-2012, 10:20
Define it.

Legislation which actually has effective mechanisms for keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

I must have been very ambiguous in my original post, because we've got people in here talking about banning guns and all that, when I thought I specifically stated thats not what I meant.

Simply things that effectively keep guns out of criminals' and crazies' hands. Whether that be some advanced form of biometrics or some other technologies that don't exist yet. Obviously, we don't have the specific answer because one doesn't exist at this time. But if one did, would you be willing to accept the gun control (not bans) in favor of actually making us safer.

The question is less about specifics of the gun control, as we're discussing the hypothetical, and more about the principle.

Glockgeezer
12-23-2012, 10:24
"Some people just need killin'!"

Glockdude1
12-23-2012, 10:29
How many kids have killed each other over Nike Air Jordan shoes???

When will the Air Jordans be banned???

:dunno:

gwalchmai
12-23-2012, 10:55
Legislation which actually has effective mechanisms for keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

I must have been very ambiguous in my original post, because we've got people in here talking about banning guns and all that, when I thought I specifically stated thats not what I meant.

Simply things that effectively keep guns out of criminals' and crazies' hands. Whether that be some advanced form of biometrics or some other technologies that don't exist yet. Obviously, we don't have the specific answer because one doesn't exist at this time. But if one did, would you be willing to accept the gun control (not bans) in favor of actually making us safer.

The question is less about specifics of the gun control, as we're discussing the hypothetical, and more about the principle.OK, so then are you asking whether "we" would be in favor of undefined legislation which would keep bad people from using guns to commit crimes, but still not infringe on our 2A rights? Well, sure, I guess most people would be in favor of that.

But wouldn't it be easier to simply declare all actions legal and thus eradicate all crime?

Carrys
12-23-2012, 11:01
It is illegal to kill a person.
It is illegal to use a gun in the commission of a crime. (aside from the illegality of the crime.)
It is illegal to brandish a weapon.
It is illegal to threaten another person with a weapon.
It is illegal to posses a weapon if it is illegal for you to posses a firearm. (again, this is a matter of illegal to break the law law)
In CT, it was illegal for him to be in possession of the two handguns. (under age)
It was illegal for him to steal those guns.
It was illegal for him to enter school property with those guns
It was no doubt illegal to discharge those firearms within city limits
It was illegal to discharge them in a negligent manner, meaning one that caused harm to others.



There are so many liberals who seem to believe that even with all these laws in place...........more are needed, to do exactly the same thing.

And they call me hard headed Mr Rambo.:wavey:







Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.

And this is what the left simply will not/does not want to believe. Their view point is that the law will trump everything...even a persons will power and desire.

It won't, it never has, but that has yet to sink in their brains.

Me thinks it won't ever do so either.







Gun control can never prevent all violent crime.


Taking away all guns might stop all crime with a gun, but it wont stop all crime.

Dispairity of force will still be an issue.

The left knows this, but they choose to ignore it. It doesn't fit with their desires, dreams, and/or beliefs.

Therefor, it must be ignored. One must act as if it doesn't exist when someone asks 'bout it, it must be denied when someone brings it up, and a heated argument must ensue when anyone speaks the truth 'bout gun control.






Legislation which actually has effective mechanisms for keeping guns out of the wrong hands.


I'm sure you think you've caught the essence of your argument/belief in that sentence........... but just damn.

What you've really and actually done, is open that proverbial can o' worms.

That you seem incapable of understanding it is even more surprising to me.

Kingarthurhk
12-23-2012, 11:13
"Some people just need killin'!"

Everybody does at some point. That is why we have an expiration date. The fact is, if you live long enough, you will die of something.

michael e
12-23-2012, 11:17
Well if it worked, we would not need it because no one would do anything wrong to require control. Everyone would have morals and do nothing wrong.
But since that is not the case , and it will never be, nothing that is forced upon me will change that. My AK, AR and the several others have never one time loaded them selfs, much less pulled the trigger to fire themselfs.

John Rambo
12-23-2012, 11:19
OK, so then are you asking whether "we" would be in favor of undefined legislation which would keep bad people from using guns to commit crimes, but still not infringe on our 2A rights? Well, sure, I guess most people would be in favor of that.

But wouldn't it be easier to simply declare all actions legal and thus eradicate all crime?

Ah, but heres the kicker. Any legislation would technically infringe upon our 2A rights, correct?

gwalchmai
12-23-2012, 11:24
Ah, but heres the kicker. Any legislation would technically infringe upon our 2A rights, correct?All I've seen so far has.

Carrys
12-23-2012, 11:28
The fact is, if you live long enough, you will die of something.



Prove it my man.:wavey:

Jgriggs
12-23-2012, 11:43
Ah, but heres the kicker. Any legislation would technically infringe upon our 2A rights, correct?



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.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

Yes, I would say that legislation that puts limits, and in fact prohibitions on who, what, when, and where a person can keep and bear arms is an infringement on our rights.

I also think it directly flies in the face of what the founders had in mind. Remember that the colonials revolted and took this country by force using weapons that were, in many cases equal to those being fielded by the professional army of England. Therefore, it seems obvious to me that they intended for we, the people to have at our disposal the same arms that are available to the professional army. In short, yes I do believe the second amendment gives us the right to own an aircraft carrier. . .if you can afford one. The 2A was intended to allow us to protect ourselves from an oppressive government, any "gun control" is really 2A control and does infringe based on the very definition of the word.

eagle359
12-23-2012, 12:23
The problem with laws is that they only work if you obey them. If an individual is willing to kill his mother do you really think that he is concerned about which laws he is breaking?

K.Kiser
12-23-2012, 13:58
To many particulars, if's, and's, and but's being brought up... It a hypothetical question... The simple way I read this hypothetical question is would I give up my rights to a semi-automatic weapon with 30 round mags if no more mass shootings upon the innocent took place, absolutely.. Would I be content with only hunting firearms and revolvers if the threat of a crazy person firing upon me was prevented by said law that limited me to those basic weapons, absolutely...

We know the laws don't do any good, but just to play along with the hypothesis... Sure I would limit some of my firearms to sporting weapons if it eliminated senseless crimes.. I would give up every firearm I own if those 20 children could be alive again to run home to their family... I would send every firearm I own through a car crusher if it meant these things never happened again... But here in the real world, I'll keep my firearms to prevent these things if given the opportunity/ responsibility...

gwalchmai
12-23-2012, 14:02
If it would tremendously reduce the number of people killed and injured in car accidents, would you accept an enforced 55 mph national speed limit?

certifiedfunds
12-23-2012, 14:20
Ban backyard swimming pools! They kill far more children every year than do semi automatic rifles.

Jgriggs
12-23-2012, 14:29
If it would tremendously reduce the number of people killed and injured in car accidents, would you accept an enforced 55 mph national speed limit?

Close. It might be more accurate to ask

If it would reduce fatal car crashes if
it were illegal for those under 18 to buy gas.
Be illegal for those under 21 to be in possession of a two door coupe.
Be illegal for anyone to operate a motor vehicle within "safety zones" to be established by local authorities.
Be illegal for anyone to run a "high horsepower" engine, the type that Law enforcement might use.
Be illegal to operate a motor vehicle in the open, motor vehicle operation can only be done in a concealed fashion - and only in some areas.
Be illegal to have a capacity of more than 5 gallons - driving more than 150 miles at a stretch is pointless and unsafe.

Now would you support all of that IF it meant a reduction in auto accidents. Afterall, in 2009 there were 9,146 homicides involving guns, while there were 33,808 deaths due to auto accidents.

K.Kiser
12-23-2012, 15:23
Close. It might be more accurate to ask

If it would reduce fatal car crashes if
it were illegal for those under 18 to buy gas.
Be illegal for those under 21 to be in possession of a two door coupe.
Be illegal for anyone to operate a motor vehicle within "safety zones" to be established by local authorities.
Be illegal for anyone to run a "high horsepower" engine, the type that Law enforcement might use.
Be illegal to operate a motor vehicle in the open, motor vehicle operation can only be done in a concealed fashion - and only in some areas.
Be illegal to have a capacity of more than 5 gallons - driving more than 150 miles at a stretch is pointless and unsafe.

Now would you support all of that IF it meant a reduction in auto accidents. Afterall, in 2009 there were 9,146 homicides involving guns, while there were 33,808 deaths due to auto accidents.

Awesome, I used a similar analogy on a different board a few days ago... The only thing you left out is to ban red, black, and suspension lowered cars because they are capable of so much speed and death...

gwalchmai
12-24-2012, 06:06
Close. It might be more accurate to ask

If it would reduce fatal car crashes if
it were illegal for those under 18 to buy gas.
Be illegal for those under 21 to be in possession of a two door coupe.
Be illegal for anyone to operate a motor vehicle within "safety zones" to be established by local authorities.
Be illegal for anyone to run a "high horsepower" engine, the type that Law enforcement might use.
Be illegal to operate a motor vehicle in the open, motor vehicle operation can only be done in a concealed fashion - and only in some areas.
Be illegal to have a capacity of more than 5 gallons - driving more than 150 miles at a stretch is pointless and unsafe.

Now would you support all of that IF it meant a reduction in auto accidents. Afterall, in 2009 there were 9,146 homicides involving guns, while there were 33,808 deaths due to auto accidents.Yes. Very good analogy. ;)

meleors
12-24-2012, 13:15
Legislation which actually has effective mechanisms for keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

Carrys pointed it out and I'll be even more blunt.

Define wrong hands.

Who decides on the definition.

Is the definition of wrong hands = criminals, bad guys, etc? Define criminal, bad guy, etc. Stalin and Hitler and Chairman Mao, etc. also felt that the criminals and bad guys should be disarmed. Of course, their definition of criminal may not agree with mine or yours. Whose is right?

Are mine the right hands? I'm a mentally stable, morally upright person who (outside of a traffic law) has never broken a law and has no violent tendencies. I've never killed anything (ok, maybe a few bugs) and never plan to. Yet I own an AR15 which I use for sport (target shooting, plinking). According to the anti's, I have the wrong hands. EH?