Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

sculptor said:
mRQ3Dld.png
Click to expand...
But it was so expensive and balky that almost nobody used one.
 
spidergoat said:
I disagree, there can still be crimes that don't involve fighting off hordes of criminals.

Not a deal breaker in my book. Better regulation about gun storage and background checks would mitigate this. I'm a liberal in favor of gun control, but not gun prohibition.
Click to expand...
You don't have to change the laws, you have change the people. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180225184123.htm

BTW, I've been an owner and shooter since 1965, including a legally licensed Browning M2 .50 cal. HMG, fully functional.
 
spidergoat said:
I disagree, there can still be crimes that don't involve fighting off hordes of criminals.
Click to expand...
Gun has to be ready for immediate use. Gun is not stored safely. Owner has to be able to drop into combat mode while opening their eyes from a dead sleep, if they get that much warning. Owner has to open fire in a house with one bad guy and, say, five family members. Bullet goes where? And owner has to be ready to kill without mercy or warning, and do it rationally so as to not endanger other residents. Not many people can do that. The military has to teach troops to kill.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Gun has to be ready for immediate use. Gun is not stored safely. Owner has to be able to drop into combat mode while opening their eyes from a dead sleep, if they get that much warning. Owner has to open fire in a house with one bad guy and, say, five family members. Bullet goes where? And owner has to be ready to kill without mercy or warning, and do it rationally so as to not endanger other residents. Not many people can do that. The military has to teach troops to kill.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you're talking about. Is this relevant?
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Many people say they have gun for self-defense/home defense. Problems with that.
Click to expand...
So what. It's a legitimate need for a gun. We can a dress that, albeit imperfectly, with legislation. There has to be compromise on this issue. But what's unacceptable is the NRA pov of absolute deregulation.
 
spidergoat said:
So what. It's a legitimate need for a gun. We can a dress that, albeit imperfectly, with legislation. There has to be compromise on this issue. But what's unacceptable is the NRA pov of absolute deregulation.
Click to expand...
I just pointed out why a gun is crap at home defense. You didn't read my post?
 
All of what you said is debatable. While being highly trained would be an advantage, an average person is able to assess danger reasonably well. And in any case, you can only defend yourself and family with the skills you already have. Liberty always comes with a certain amount of risk.
 
spidergoat said:
All of what you said is debatable. While being highly trained would be an advantage, an average person is able to assess danger reasonably well. And in any case, you can only defend yourself and family with the skills you already have. Liberty always comes with a certain amount of risk.
Click to expand...
Like dead children.
This why I say you're parroting the NRA.
 
They aren't wrong about everything, but they go too far. I think most Democrats would agree that the right of lawful, sane people to own a gun of some kind should not be denied.
 
spidergoat said:
They aren't wrong about everything, but they go too far. I think most Democrats would agree that the right of lawful, sane people to own a gun of some kind should not be denied.
Click to expand...
I've been an owner and shooter since 1965. I'm part of the coyote thinning hunts we have around here. Guns have their uses. But self-defense is a silly reason to own a gun. Half of guns owners don't store their guns safely, the body count confirms that.
 
So, make a law about gun storage. Use technology- biometrics or face recognition to unlock your gun. I think shooting coyotes is the silliest use of a gun. Especially since they react to less competition from other coyotes by breeding faster.
 
spidergoat said:
So, make a law about gun storage. Use technology- biometrics or face recognition to unlock your gun. I think shooting coyotes is the silliest use of a gun. Especially since they react to less competition from other coyotes by breeding faster.
Click to expand...
Trying making any law about guns. I'll watch.

The thinning has been going on for years and it works. The populations have declined. Fewer sheep are killed, fewer children attacked, etc. If you don't know shit about a subject it's probably not good to comment on it.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
For every bad guy killed with a gun, 34 innocent people die. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...illed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

In other words, the benefit isn't there.
Click to expand...
That doesn't follow. Almost the opposite follows.

If guns were always used perfectly in self defense, and had maximum self defense benefit, the ratio would be even higher - almost nobody would get shot except the innocent, by accident. Your number, if it were honest in the first place, would be possible evidence of great benefit, rather than no benefit.

Look: guns in claimed or theoretical use for self defense do not kill people, in theory, normally. They more often - standard and normal, in theory - prevent the killing of people. That's their ostensible, claimed, theoretical role - the house break-in that never happens or is scared away, the looming assault warned off, the street robbery never attempted, the school not targeted by the lunatic, because the gun is there. That's what they are supposed to be doing.

You can argue that this is delusion, that their value in that role is overestimated, or whatever, but you can't argue against their value in that role by pointing to how few people they killed - that's stupid. They are supposed to kill nobody. Not killing people means they are working as planned.

In addition to the miserable confusion of the argument, there is the bullshit nature of the headline statistic itself, prior to it being misused - suicides, many gang killings, and so forth, are not "innocent people". They are perpetrators. Many of the gang killings could even be classified as "self defense" - the exact category they are excluded from. The fact that these are perpetrated killings of different kinds means that the entire statistic is a confused mess - that no conclusion follows from the comparison, because nothing in particular is being compared. And including categories like suicide means that no particular recommendation or take on gun control can be derived - even as agitprop, nothing follows here.

This is not good. This is bad journalism, bad science, bad politics.

So the question becomes: How do we persuade gun control advocates, the people with a liberal cause and good government in mind, to desist from dishonesty and bullshit, and instead adopt the good arguments from sound evidence ready to hand?
 
Write4U said:
Somebody is being disingenius about this self-defense argument. We already have "well regulated" militias in every state. They are called the National Guard or State Militia.
Click to expand...
The National Guard is not a militia. You've been informed of that fact before, with links and detailed explication and so forth. You have no excuse for repeating that falsehood.
Afaik the militia most States is still the adult male population under the age of 45 or so, unless there have been recent changes in the local laws. How well regulated they would be, if called up, I have no idea - in my neighborhood they are often military veterans with decent weapons and other gear at home, so they would be better regulated to begin with than most of the militia in 1780.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top