We must let Big Brother save us from the evil guns!

Author: TheMorningsStar

Posts

Total: 28
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
Have you not heard, guns kill people! My gun just tried to shoot me, but luckily it didn't succeed. Screw focusing on mental health, poverty, etc. We all know that it isn't that people kill people, it is those dastardly guns! Damn, my gun just tried to shoot me again!

That's it, we need to ban guns! That will solve the problem!
But wait... some of my guns are 3D printed... And with advances in that technology that means...
Oh no... anyone will eventually be able to print themselves a gun?

But guns are evil things! They kill people! What... what do we do?

I know! I remember reading an instruction manual about this before, what was it called... 1900? No. 1986? Not right either.... Oh well, point is, I have a solution!
Let's just get rid of the concept of privacy all together! Papa government will look after us! And anyone that tries to step out of line by abusing a 3D printer will be caught immediately and punished!

This way there are less of those evil guns roaming around. Damn guns, always trying to kill people. Why can't these things just leave us alone?

But... what if... what if someone still manages to get a gun? Oh no.... now there will be less people there to try and defend themselves or others... the CDC has stated that potentially up to 2.5 million defensive uses of guns occur each year... Oh well, screw that number, it pales in comparison to the estimated 500,000-600,00 thousand hospitalizations each year due to guns. After all, haven't you heard the saying that less is more?

Besides, Papa government has the police, they will protect us! After all, when the person standing in front of me has a gun we know that the police are right there to do something! That is why so often during school shooting tragedies we hear stories about the police just sitting outside doing nothing for quite some time!

Come on everyone, let's kill all those damn guns! After all, it is those guns that kill people!
Let's get rid of all guns and invite Papa government into our homes so we can ensure that with advances in 3D printing that no one ever uses such technology to make a gun!
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
As satire as it is, guns are non-living, so we can't kill them.

Then, I think it is a pretty good decision to put restrictions on guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people; but guns are one way people kill people and putting restrictions on guns can reduce the number of people killed.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Come on everyone, let's kill all those damn guns! After all, it is those guns that kill people!
Let's get rid of all guns and invite Papa government into our homes so we can ensure that with advances in 3D printing that no one ever uses such technology to make a gun!
I can assure you this is not far from what happens in China. In fact, although 3d printing can make a gun in China, making a working model is simply illegal and warrants a jail sentence. If you post a gun model online that can shoot actual bullets and not just a collector's hobby model, believe it or not, someone will report it and you will get into jail.

Now, the question comes...What if the US enforces such system?

badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
This reads a little manic from the guy who wanted to remove his penis there for a while. I wonder is there some analogy here. 

Don't mind me, just fun. 

I hear you guys shot up a bunch of kindergartners recently. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@badger
I hear you guys shot up a bunch of kindergartners recently. 
"gun owners" is not a specific group. None of them have killed kindergartners. 
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I meant Americans. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@badger
Europeans are currently slaughtering each other so relax
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I have no doubt the UK gives no s**** about Americans dying for any reason. Especially in a red state.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If a kid hits another child with a stick, we don't blame the stick...but we do take it away. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Poly.

What is s****.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Europeans.
So you've finally denounced your heritage Doc.

Begorrah.
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes, take away the stick. In fact, take away all sticks! Damn sticks, being used wrong! Hey kids, none of you get to have sticks! No one else does either!
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Yes, take away the stick. In fact, take away all sticks! Damn sticks, being used wrong! Hey kids, none of you get to have sticks! No one else does either!
Do you have a real argument or is absurdly representing the opposition the entirety of your position? I only ask to see how much effort I should expend in response.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
just a bit of banter zed
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Yes, take away the stick. In fact, take away all sticks! Damn sticks, being used wrong! Hey kids, none of you get to have sticks! No one else does either!
Only need to ban the assault sticks. Hand sticks are fine.
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Do you have a real argument or is absurdly representing the opposition the entirety of your position?
Oh, I have a real argument, but you must have missed my comment a while back about me no longer taking this place seriously as almost no one here engages in good faith anyways. Why should I put in any actual effort when this place has become so polarized that almost no one actually will take seriously the arguments against their own position?

Technology has moved us past the point of gun control working without requiring massive privacy violations, which I hinted at in the OP and you decided to ignore.
Even if gun control would have worked in the US (which is already doubtful), any policy you could possibly implement will become worthless in the next decade or two. I have guns that are almost entirely 3D printed with the exception being parts I can buy at the hardware store. It isn't that hard to make bullets that are still lethal with a 3D printer + hardware store parts and this will only be easier within the next decade or so. Making your own powder is also really easy. Shells are more difficult, but there are already groups looking at how it could be done and within the next decade or two of advances in 3D printing technology then this will be easy. Etc. Any part you wish to ban will soon be able to be made at home easily, any type of gun you wish to ban will soon be printable, etc. How will you address this without huge privacy violations? How will you monitor private sales, especially with these guns, without huge privacy violations (if you can't, how will you enforce laws around private sales)? Etc. Even if this bans would have worked before, they won't now.

Combine that with the number of defensive uses of guns used each year (average between the estimated highest and lowest point is 1.2 million) compared to hospitalizations due to guns in general (between 500,000 to 600,000), both of these numbers having been on the CDC website, and it is clear that guns are used defensively more often than they hurt people. With the advancement of technology basically making it so that within the next decade or so any gun ban or gun control measure will become pointless, those that wish to do harm will still have easy access to a gun while that that would use a gun defensively will have a harder time gaining access or having one on them to use defensively.

This doesn't even address the poor border control we have in comparison to the usual examples of gun control/bans working (UK, Australia, etc.), doesn't address the benefits of an armed populace, how useless the police are when it comes to protecting people, etc.

The reality is that the issues that need to be fixed have nothing to do with guns, any gun ban or gun control policy you implement won't work in the long term, and with the gun culture being what it is it would take too long for it to have any real impact in the short term either (which means they are all pointless at this point). If you put your focus on implementing gun control or gun bans then, due to advancing technology, you must also sacrifice privacy of the individual on some an extreme measure. Otherwise you are ignoring the realities of where we are and will be technologically.

I could go on and on, but it is pretty much pointless. I put in the effort to make this comment and guess what, no one that is an advocate for gun control/bans here will really give a shit anyways. Sure, some people that are on my side might give me that 'thumbs up' or even expand on the point, but the effort here is wasted. Even those that are on the 'other side' as me that seem to engage now will, in the next month or so, end up having completely reverted to the point they were at before this comment was made, regardless on whether they are able to address the points I brought up. In fact, they will continue making the same exact points without any real change in their rhetoric in the not so distant future. This is clear to see when it comes to basically every single issue that ever gets debated on this website. Look at people's comment histories and it will become clear.

You want me to engage with this level of effort at a minimum, but why bother when it will serve no purpose? People here have grown too polarized, too stubborn, etc., especially compared to DDO when you and I were active on it. Effort is now wasted, and so instead I put a few legitimate points in my trolling. Some people have noticed that I have done precisely this and been able to read between the lines (I know because I have serious discussions through messages with people), others don't. If you fall on the former then it increases the odds that you are worth the effort to talk with, otherwise it typically shows that the person is just another one that effort would be wasted upon.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
1. Ghost guns: essentially the argument is there may be a way to skirt guns laws, so guns laws are pointless? This is a silly argument. There are many laws that are imperfect and, yet, effective. Perfection is not a reasonable standard.

2. Defensive gun use is huge: Maybe, maybe not. The CDC, which was sourced, recognizes defensive use estimates are dependent on questions asked, timeframes, study design, population studied, etc. Long story short: the CDC recognizes more research is necessary to get a better understanding of the real numbers. That being said, I am more than happy to stipulate firearms can be beneficial in some scenarios. If they weren’t, this discussion would be unnecessary. By the same token, firearms are undeniably harmful. Must we accept this harm as unavoidable? We haven’t done that with motor vehicles. Perhaps this is one of the reasons children are more likely to die from firearms Injuries than car accidents now.

3. Border controls gun control? : I’m not sure what the argument is here. Are refugees/immigrants gun-toting criminals?

4. Armed populace: Gun control doesn’t prevent an armed populace…

5. Useless police: Gun control doesn’t prevent gun ownership and self defense if and when police are useless.

6. Gun control won’t work: We have evidence it does. In general, states with softer gun laws have higher gun crimes. Assault weapons bans have reduced gun deaths. Other countries with high gun ownership have dramatically reduced rate of gun violence, mass shootings, and school shooting. Gun control won't work only if we don't do it. We can argue over which policy might be more effective, but we shouldn't be arguing there is no solution.



TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
essentially the argument is there may be a way to skirt guns laws, so guns laws are pointless?
Way to oversimplify the point until it becomes a strawman.
No, the point is that we can look at Chicago as an example of a place that has a lot of gun control but high gun crime. Why? Because guns are easily accessible. Technological advances are only going to make guns even more accessible. As it is right now I can, for pretty cheap, make someone a gun within 24 hours. That time will soon be reduced and the quality of the firearm will become better. Anyone that wants a gun will soon be able to just print one, and no laws (unless you create massive privacy violations) will be able to stop this.
It isn't that the law is imperfect, it is that the law will soon become useless as we have grown technologically to the point where gun control just won't work.

Defensive gun use is huge: Maybe, maybe not
Ya, I went with the middle of the two numbers because of that, but the point is that you can go to the middle of the range of defensive uses and you will be at double the maximum estimated hospitalizations, and that is hospitalizations in general, which means some of those people might be there because of the defensive uses (among other reasons).
If you make it so that it is difficult for law abiding citizens to legally have a gun while technology has advanced to the point that anyone that wants a gun can get one no problem, then these numbers will only ever shift in a negative way.

Border controls gun control? : I’m not sure what the argument is here. Are refugees/immigrants gun-toting criminals?
Are you serious? You think that is what is meant? Are you a dishonest hack or is it that hard for you to possible see what the point is? No, the point is that we have horrible border security, there is constant smuggling across the southern border, and if new markets open up they are made use of (which is why cartels smuggled fucking avocados before for a while). All that is going to happen is that a new market will open up for smugglers with new products, especially when you consider that the political party that would need to be in control to implement these gun control laws is the same party that weakens our southern border whenever they have political control.

 Gun control won’t work: We have evidence it does
And this is why I think you are either completely ignorant or a dishonest hack (which is disappointing as I actually respected you in our DDO days). You cannot look to the past when the technological situation has changed as dramatically as it has. The technology that is being developed right now has made it so that none of the proposed gun control legislation will matter. Whatever you want banned will be easily accessible anyways, moreso than booze during prohibition. Gun control only ever works to reduce gun crime if there is a way to ensure that whatever is banned is not easily accessible, but that just isn't the reality of the near future.

Basically your entire response at this point is you not actually listening to the points being made, constructing a couple strawmans, etc. As I predicted, it was a wasted effort on my part. This is why I am done taking people seriously here, as even people I actually respected (like you) have fallen so pathetically low that it just isn't worth putting in the time or effort.

None of the points I have made are even new points, they are arguments that have existed (though not in the common debate you see in mainstream media) for a decade now, yet it is clear by how you responded that you either never heard them before or that you have decided that it is best to misrepresent the point at every possible moment. If it is the former then it really raises a question on why you are so certain in your position when it is clear you haven't actually tried engaging seriously with the other side (as otherwise you would have been exposed to this line of argument), and if it is the latter then it just speaks on your character having fallen in the last decade.

Either way, deuces. I'm out.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
As ever Doc.

Top of the morning to ya.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Enjoy the mass killings and keep preaching your fucktard propaganda.

The dead children and teachers will appreciate your movement in the afterlife.

Like really, who do you think you are fooling?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
If a kid hits another child with a stick, we don't blame the stick...but we do take it away. 
Except adults aren't children, and you "take the [stick] away" from the offending party--not everyone who has a stick.
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,035
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
so you think every person who is told they can't have a gun by gun control laws will 3d print one or get one illegally or kill with another method? again, perfection in our legislative agenda isn't necessary. you are the one ignoring basic logic. 
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
Except adults aren't children, and you "take the [stick] away" from the offending party--not everyone who has a stick.
I'm not sure what would lead anyone to equate this stick analogy to across the board gun bans. We should all agree someone who establishes they can't handle being a gun owner, shouldn't be a gun owner. That's the gist of the analogy. 

If anyone wants to discuss how we determine unfitness, I'll be over here waiting for an honest discussion.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm not sure what would lead anyone to equate this stick analogy to across the board gun bans
So to clarify, you were not suggesting a gun-ban across the board? Presumably just for prospective gun-owners who are violent offenders?

We should all agree someone who establishes they can't handle being a gun owner, shouldn't be a gun owner.
Too arbitrary. And one should only be disarmed if they present a clear threat.

If anyone wants to discuss how we determine unfitness, I'll be over here waiting for an honest discussion.
How do we determine unfitness?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Anyone that wants a gun will soon be able to just print one, and no laws (unless you create massive privacy violations) will be able to stop this.
The Patriot Act created massive privacy violations, yet pretty much all of the same people railing about 'big government having no right to take our guns' had no problem with it. Privacy and safety will always be a tug of war, it's just a question of what the issue is at hand than determines what side of it you land on. So in this case, because you value guns, you oppose any legislation that could severely hamper one's ability to make them at home, and because of your position along with everyone else who shares your basic value here, no meaningful legislation is plausible.

It's not an argument to claim gun printing cannot be stopped (because you won't let it be stopped). That's just a statement of perceived power.

I could go on and on, but it is pretty much pointless. I put in the effort to make this comment and guess what, no one that is an advocate for gun control/bans here will really give a shit anyways. Sure, some people that are on my side might give me that 'thumbs up' or even expand on the point, but the effort here is wasted...
If your metric for whether your time on this site is wasted is whether other people change their mind, then you are the very problem you take issue with. Openmindedness is about the will to look deeply at your own position and question whether it is valid, yet your expectation is that everyone else change their minds to agree with you and if they don't then that is proof in and of itself that they are dishonest or willingly ignorant. That's not openmindedness, that's arrogance.

I have no expectation that anyone else here will change their mind after reading my arguments, yet I engage anyway. That's because I'm not here for anyone else, I'm here for me. If you are any different from those you take issue with you'd be able to say the same.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
How do we determine unfitness?
Great question! To be clear, in my mind unfittness does not only apply to a person that presents a clear threat. I personally would like to see actuaries take a crack at this. They would determine what factors add up to significant risk. 

Absent this, requiring a delay period for purchase, increasing the age necessary to purchase some or all types of firearms, requiring training/permit (getting rid of Constitutional Carry), and storage requirements all would have the tendency to weed out impulsive, immature, careless gunowners who are a danger to themselves or others. 

This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other possible measures. I'm open to mixing and matching to find the balance preserving a reasonable right to self defense and other rights which can be negatively affected by firearms. 
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
Great question! To be clear, in my mind unfittness does not only apply to a person that presents a clear threat. I personally would like to see actuaries take a crack at this. They would determine what factors add up to significant risk. 
What is a "significant risk"? How can it be determined?

Absent this, requiring a delay period for purchase,
Why a delay of purchase?

increasing the age necessary to purchase some or all types of firearms,
How does a change in the age requirements qualify firearm possession?

requiring training/permit (getting rid of Constitutional Carry), and storage requirements all would have the tendency to weed out impulsive, immature, careless gunowners who are a danger to themselves or others. 
How does a training permit, and storage requirements weed out impulsive, immature, careless gun owners who are  a danger to themselves or others? More to point, how does the aforementioned prevent mass shootings?

I'm open to mixing and matching to find the balance preserving a reasonable right to self defense and other rights which can be negatively affected by firearms. 
Which rights are those?
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Athias
What is a "significant risk"? How can it be determined?
Someone who would be at a higher than average risk of misusing or allowing a firearm to be misused. Ideally, this would be in the context of insurance acturaies.

Why a delay of purchase?
For one, to allow hot-headed individuals to cool down or be caught.

How does a change in the age requirements qualify firearm possession?
To increase the likelihood of mature gun ownership.

How does a training permit, and storage requirements weed out impulsive, immature, careless gun owners who are  a danger to themselves or others? More to point, how does the aforementioned prevent mass shootings?
An individual educated on proper handling and legality of gun ownership is more likely to understand and avoid careless and legally dubious decisions regarding firearms. Eg. It is better to lose a $100 lawnmower than to face the legal and finiancial consequences of injuring/killing in a non-life threatening scenario.

Storage requirements prevents unauthorized users (perhaps minor or criminals) access to firearms. It is responsible common sense gun ownership. Mass shootings isn't the only issue on the table - gun injury is the leading cause of death in children and adolescents.

Which rights are those?
Firearms are relevant to the right to self defense and the right to life... if not others. Ie. Your right to defend yourself should not unnecessarily put the lives of others at risk. There is no right to infringe upon the rights of others.