Firearms Regulations

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:16 pm UTC

gd1"
Rifles are still used in shootings as evidenced by school shootings. Reducing access could reduce death. There is no need for legitimate ownership of a rifle in today's society unless you live out in the woods and shoot your food on a daily basis. You don't need it as a hobby and stores make food available. So, punishing legitimate owners may be the wrong way to look at it. They just aren't necessary, and the tradeoff is directly associable as a cost in human life. I don't know about the locks deal. I would think that to be a waste of time for the purpose of self defense as you'd want to have it ready as quickly as possible.[/quote]

They are used in some of the mass shootings, yes. Not all, though. Pistols show up as well. There isn't some defining line of pistols being safe or rifles not. I note that a previous firearm push was to ban pistols on the basis of folks not needing them, but of course, they'd be permitted to keep rifles. Or at least, that was the line at the time. So, of course, there's a lot of concern that if one were banned, and nothing changed, they'd simply come after the next target.

Banning rifles wouldn't do anything to fix the root causes here. Yes, it's true that in modern society, most of us don't have any need to hunt our own food. Doing that is definitely particularly foreign to an urban society. Hunting is definitely still big in the country, though.

The lock thing comes about as a result of an intersection of state and federal law. Both mandate a lock be purchased with the handgun. However, they mandate different kinds of locks. So, I end up buying two. Each law, taken individually, can be justified in that locks can be used for safety. However, the combined effect is irrational. There is indeed a tradeoff between locks and self defense accessibility, but in some cases, a lock is worth it. For instance, if you have small children in the house, you ought to properly secure your weapons. I don't have any kids, but I can open the safe fairly quickly, and I don't mind having a little bit of extra security, but locks and safe would also be largely redundant.

[quote][quote="Tyndmyr wrote:
Usually it's a tool that has extreme importance in modern society (like a car) or it's something that is not directly used to kill masses of people (like a computer game in which case the people made their choice as opposed to not making their choice to be gunned down en masse).


Having a backyard swimming pool is a lot more dangerous to your family than owning a rifle.I don't think it would be easy for an owner of a pool to kill multiple people with their pool.


I don't think it would be easy for an owner of a pool to kill multiple people with their pool.[/quote]

Accidental drownings, mostly. Kids wander into pool, get stuck, drown. There isn't really a big push to ban backyard pools, though. I mean, sure, folks will advocate for safe use, but nobody feels a need for licensing, registration, or banning for safety reasons.

However, the point is that pools contradict your statement. A pool can cause death pretty directly, and is not a necessary thing to most lives the way automobiles are.

Mass shootings are fairly rare overall. They just get a lot of attention because the individual incidents are large. It's something akin to airlines. Air travel is, objectively, pretty safe. Actual death rates are quite low compared to, say, driving. However, when an airline goes down, it's all over the news for ages, and it's a big deal, often with many deaths at once. Thus, you have a lot of people who are afraid of flying, but give zero fucks about driving a car, and often can't even be bothered to use the turn signals.

It's not an essential freedom (and certainly one that I wouldn't think would be worth the directly traceable cost in human life). Guns should really only be used for self defense in a large number of situations. If it were a hobby like skiing or something where the cause of other people's deaths (who didn't choose it) was so directly associable then maybe it would be harder to associate. But the fact is that guns do facilitate killing. They are necessary for self defense, but not a whole lot of other things.


First off, as already noted, firearm ownership is generally not correlated with murder. And of types of firearms, long guns kill a great deal fewer people than handguns do.

Well, what makes a freedom essential? Target shooting is a really popular hobby, and is an Olympic sport(though I notice the media rarely makes a hubbub about the US winning shooting events).

Would banning, say, football be acceptable? Football matches have frequently resulted in sports fans behaving riotously, and hurting or killing people, and damaging property. Even disregarding injuries on the field, sports fans often manage to be quite obnoxious and injurious to society. Why is sport shooting not considered an acceptable sport, even when the rest are?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11204
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:22 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's the laws that punish legitimate, non criminal owners that are at issue.

Punish. An odd word. Used in its most broad sense, I presume. Like when I wasn't allowed a second chocolate biscuit in any given day as a child.

And if 'non-criminal' owners were sanctioned against their ownership by law, then they would be criminal by definition if they were still owners. (Like children of undocumented imigrants who are allowed to go through the process of legalising their status so long as they have no criminal record, but then get a record and are deporyed for breaking the immigration law. Was that a shoe I hear falling from the other foot?)


Ach! The situation is crazy enough. But for some reason I decided to write and post the above anyway.


The immigration system is probably not an ideal model for much of anything else. It's not even good at handling immigration, I'm not sure why we should want to use something similar for firearms.

The act of banning firearms would be the punishment. Essentially, folks who enjoy using firearms no longer can, because of the actions of different people entirely. If you can target laws to affect those who are, yknow, violent criminals without targeting presently law abiding folks, then you might have something. But without that, of course anti-gun folks are going to be seen as "anti-legitimate gun" people, not as anti-crime people. Because none of the things they are proposing are about crime.

gd1
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby gd1 » Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:04 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gd1"
Rifles are still used in shootings as evidenced by school shootings. Reducing access could reduce death. There is no need for legitimate ownership of a rifle in today's society unless you live out in the woods and shoot your food on a daily basis. You don't need it as a hobby and stores make food available. So, punishing legitimate owners may be the wrong way to look at it. They just aren't necessary, and the tradeoff is directly associable as a cost in human life. I don't know about the locks deal. I would think that to be a waste of time for the purpose of self defense as you'd want to have it ready as quickly as possible.


They are used in some of the mass shootings, yes. Not all, though. Pistols show up as well. There isn't some defining line of pistols being safe or rifles not. I note that a previous firearm push was to ban pistols on the basis of folks not needing them, but of course, they'd be permitted to keep rifles. Or at least, that was the line at the time. So, of course, there's a lot of concern that if one were banned, and nothing changed, they'd simply come after the next target.

Banning rifles wouldn't do anything to fix the root causes here. Yes, it's true that in modern society, most of us don't have any need to hunt our own food. Doing that is definitely particularly foreign to an urban society. Hunting is definitely still big in the country, though.

The lock thing comes about as a result of an intersection of state and federal law. Both mandate a lock be purchased with the handgun. However, they mandate different kinds of locks. So, I end up buying two. Each law, taken individually, can be justified in that locks can be used for safety. However, the combined effect is irrational. There is indeed a tradeoff between locks and self defense accessibility, but in some cases, a lock is worth it. For instance, if you have small children in the house, you ought to properly secure your weapons. I don't have any kids, but I can open the safe fairly quickly, and I don't mind having a little bit of extra security, but locks and safe would also be largely redundant.

[quote][quote="Tyndmyr wrote:
Usually it's a tool that has extreme importance in modern society (like a car) or it's something that is not directly used to kill masses of people (like a computer game in which case the people made their choice as opposed to not making their choice to be gunned down en masse).


Having a backyard swimming pool is a lot more dangerous to your family than owning a rifle.I don't think it would be easy for an owner of a pool to kill multiple people with their pool.


I don't think it would be easy for an owner of a pool to kill multiple people with their pool.


Accidental drownings, mostly. Kids wander into pool, get stuck, drown. There isn't really a big push to ban backyard pools, though. I mean, sure, folks will advocate for safe use, but nobody feels a need for licensing, registration, or banning for safety reasons.

However, the point is that pools contradict your statement. A pool can cause death pretty directly, and is not a necessary thing to most lives the way automobiles are.

Mass shootings are fairly rare overall. They just get a lot of attention because the individual incidents are large. It's something akin to airlines. Air travel is, objectively, pretty safe. Actual death rates are quite low compared to, say, driving. However, when an airline goes down, it's all over the news for ages, and it's a big deal, often with many deaths at once. Thus, you have a lot of people who are afraid of flying, but give zero fucks about driving a car, and often can't even be bothered to use the turn signals.

It's not an essential freedom (and certainly one that I wouldn't think would be worth the directly traceable cost in human life). Guns should really only be used for self defense in a large number of situations. If it were a hobby like skiing or something where the cause of other people's deaths (who didn't choose it) was so directly associable then maybe it would be harder to associate. But the fact is that guns do facilitate killing. They are necessary for self defense, but not a whole lot of other things.


First off, as already noted, firearm ownership is generally not correlated with murder. And of types of firearms, long guns kill a great deal fewer people than handguns do.

Well, what makes a freedom essential? Target shooting is a really popular hobby, and is an Olympic sport(though I notice the media rarely makes a hubbub about the US winning shooting events).

Would banning, say, football be acceptable? Football matches have frequently resulted in sports fans behaving riotously, and hurting or killing people, and damaging property. Even disregarding injuries on the field, sports fans often manage to be quite obnoxious and injurious to society. Why is sport shooting not considered an acceptable sport, even when the rest are?[/quote]

============

The important difference here is that people know the risks and can choose to avoid them with a pool or football. Someone with a gun isn't exactly something you can know the risks in advance or avoid. It's other people deeming the risks to you as acceptable in exchange for a hobby (which is mainly a problem because of how directly related guns are to the loss of life caused). Also, with football events it is reliably possible to have well positioned security well in advance. A person could have a gun anywhere.

Technically, freedoms aren't essential to life, but they are important to quality of life. I can accept football in spite of the terrible injuries involved because the people choose to play. Guns as a hobby is just too much loss for too little reward and most importantly against people who were unwilling participants in loss situations.

Lastly, I question whether it is worth it to allow people to enjoy guns at a such a high cost in life so directly lost.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.