Gun Control

[SWedd523]

If current gun legislation proposals are any indication, they're far more interested in getting "those evil weapons of war" off the streets in general than stopping individual mass killings

[Bogg]

Now to anyone arguing gun control. Just stop. Its over, it was over before it began. It's an impossible task, like tossing a solo cup of water on a house fire. Guns are here, there is no going back. Left leaning ilk often like to think they can control, but its just impossible without infringing human rights. You can either be free or safe, not both.

That's stupid. It's like arguing that there's no sense in regulating intoxicated driving because drivers have access to alcohol. I said it before in this thread and I'm saying it again - I don't care what kind or how many guns a law-abiding person owns. I don't even need someone to have some sort of reason for owning them. However, we should be focusing on making it harder for common, low-level criminals to get access to guns they already aren't allowed to have.

[Mustachio]

That's stupid. It's like arguing that there's no sense in regulating intoxicated driving because drivers have access to alcohol. I said it before in this thread and I'm saying it again - I don't care what kind or how many guns a law-abiding person owns. I don't even need someone to have some sort of reason for owning them. However, we should be focusing on making it harder for common, low-level criminals to get access to guns they already aren't allowed to have.

Obviously you didn't read the rest of the post. Go ahead explain how your going to make it harder for common low level criminals to get access to guns when they can imagine and print them in their home/cave/lair? I'll wait.

[Bogg]

Obviously you didn't read the rest of the post. Go ahead explain how your going to make it harder for common low level criminals to get access to guns when they can imagine and print them in their home/cave/lair? I'll wait.

A) We've had the technology to build your own firearms for a long time - any decently skilled machinist with access to a shop can make a rudimentary firearm if they really wanted to. AK clones are being made in huts in various 'stans right now. The reality on the ground is that your average corner boy in New Orleans is using a pistol manufactured by a major name that disappeared into the ether three years ago. You make it harder for firearms to disappear, and you make it harder for criminals to get them.

B) Ironically enough, the gun lobby will probably do a pretty good job of preventing the exact scenario you're describing. The NRA works for the manufacturers, and Colt has no intention of being put out of business by Hewlett-Packard. Expect some version of the RIAA/MPAA for firearms manufacturers to come about in the next ten years, only they'll be able to go after tangible products instead of solely digital files. The same guys you're cheering for now are going to be the ones suing you for $2 million and looking to get you jailed for ten years if you're caught with an AR lower receiver that you "printed" without paying the appropriate licensing fees.

[Mustachio]

A) We've had the technology to build your own firearms for a long time - any decently skilled machinist with access to a shop can make a rudimentary firearm if they really wanted to. AK clones are being made in huts in various 'stans right now. The reality on the ground is that your average corner boy in New Orleans is using a pistol manufactured by a major name that disappeared into the ether three years ago. You make it harder for firearms to disappear, and you make it harder for criminals to get them.

B) Ironically enough, the gun lobby will probably do a pretty good job of preventing the exact scenario you're describing. The NRA works for the manufacturers, and Colt has no intention of being put out of business by Hewlett-Packard. Expect some version of the RIAA/MPAA for firearms manufacturers to come about in the next ten years, only they'll be able to go after tangible products instead of solely digital files. The same guys you're cheering for now are going to be the ones suing you for $2 million and looking to get you jailed for ten years if you're caught with an AR lower receiver that you "printed" without paying the appropriate licensing fees.

A) We have had to the technology to build guns independently for a long time, and guns continue to disappear daily. So your battle has already been lost. If bad people want weapons they will get them. Period. (but stop pretending hut built AR's and hand built hand cannons are even in the same ball park as CAD-rendered gun parts and the ease with which they will soon be available)

and B) Thanks for putting words in my mouth but for the record I am not a member of the NRA, nor do I support ANY lobby for any purpose. I simply believe that gun control is control and that the right to bear arms is a RIGHT. I dont think you understand printing. Hewlett-Packard has nothing to do with it. And a gun manufacture cannot sue or jail for using an open source CAD-file that has nothing to do with their product.

[Bogg]

A) We have had to the technology to build guns independently for a long time, and guns continue to disappear daily. So your battle has already been lost. If bad people want weapons they will get them. Period. (but stop pretending hut built AR's and hand built hand cannons are even in the same ball park as CAD-rendered gun parts and the ease with which they will soon be available)

We're not doing anything to stop guns from disappearing. It's not a battle that's lost, it's one that's not being fought to begin with. There are places where it's legal for me to purchase a handgun and then turn around and sell it to the first person I meet with a fistful of cash.

and B) Thanks for putting words in my mouth but for the record I am not a member of the NRA, nor do I support ANY lobby for any purpose. I simply believe that gun control is control and that the right to bear arms is a RIGHT. I dont think you understand printing. Hewlett-Packard has nothing to do with it. And a gun manufacture cannot sue or jail for using an open source CAD-file that has nothing to do with their product.

So you don't support efforts to fight more restrictive gun-control laws around the country?

As far as the printing technology goes, the lawyers always find a way. If you really think that the future is going to entail the production of whole firearms from in-home printers without the manufacturers getting their cut, you're crazy. There's a lot of smart people with quite a bit of pull in Washington who will be on the verge of losing large amounts of money if people can download and print their own weapons for the cost of materials instead of paying several hundred dollars at the initial point of sale. I figure Smith & Wesson will come down harder on anyone caught creating and distributing any files based on their designs than Feinstein and Boxer ever could.

[QC Thundercats]

I want to state a disclaimer up front:

I am not a liberal
I am not a conservative
I do not own a gun
I support the right to own guns

My positions on the issue are in my mini-theses a few pages back, so I'm not going to re write anything here. But I just wanted to interject in response to this:

The liberals who prefer a socialized nanny state will never give up the debate because its clear that the 2nd is the one who protects evey other right and freedom. Until they find a way to take that, they won't be able to complete their goals.

This is the type of overbroad, stereotyping rhetoric that I always will have a problem with. It paints people with a different viewpoint as a block of "them" or "the others" that you can look at as wrong headed people. Are there some liberals who would like to go to a more socialistic government? Sure, but they are a fringe minority that doesn't represent the full spectrum, kind of like the Westboro Baptist nutjobs are at the fringe end of conservatives, who hate other races, religions, lifestyles, etc. But it would be idiotic to say all conservatives are like this, right?

Broad brush painting doesn't lead to any productive dialogue, and instead hurts progress to create a compromise, from the message board level all the way up to Capitol Hill. I hate this side of politics.

I live in Chicago, one of the more liberal cities in the US. I'm surrounded by many self-proclaimed liberals, some of the hipster variety, some of the young grad school intellectuals, some of the low income grunt workers. Guess what? Absolutely none of them want to live under an overprotective government, to have a socialized nanny state become our reality. Everyone is strongly independent, and the city is filled with hard working blue collar and white collar people alike, and don't want government intrusion. But they are completely opposite of the conservative mindset in terms of politics.

So this notion of the lazy liberal who wants daddy government to take care of them that is repeated ad nauseum is such a trite, unproductive, misleading claim that I wish would stop being thrown out as fact. Just because there are a couple examples of it doesn't mean that this is what everyone must think. In regards to guns, I have a liberal friend who owns a shotgun and a pistol. He's not looking for the government to confiscate all guns. And I'm sure there's tons more like him.

Ultimately, I'm hoping that these false, stereotypical claims about liberals and conservatives, or libertarians, progressives, and all types would stop, and actual discussion started, instead of everyone creating strawman arguments and deflecting from the actual discussion thats needed. Like I said, I support gun rights, but think something can and should be done to help curb the escalating violence with guns. I'm still waiting to actually hear a proposal, other than heavily arming the populace, that the uninhibited gun rights proponents think would help the problem. Nothing has been proffered to date that I've seen.

[Mustachio]

I want to state a disclaimer up front:

I am not a liberal
I am not a conservative
I do not own a gun
I support the right to own guns

My positions on the issue are in my mini-theses a few pages back, so I'm not going to re write anything here. But I just wanted to interject in response to this:



This is the type of overbroad, stereotyping rhetoric that I always will have a problem with. It paints people with a different viewpoint as a block of "them" or "the others" that you can look at as wrong headed people. Are there some liberals who would like to go to a more socialistic government? Sure, but they are a fringe minority that doesn't represent the full spectrum, kind of like the Westboro Baptist nutjobs are at the fringe end of conservatives, who hate other races, religions, lifestyles, etc. But it would be idiotic to say all conservatives are like this, right?

Broad brush painting doesn't lead to any productive dialogue, and instead hurts progress to create a compromise, from the message board level all the way up to Capitol Hill. I hate this side of politics.

I live in Chicago, one of the more liberal cities in the US. I'm surrounded by many self-proclaimed liberals, some of the hipster variety, some of the young grad school intellectuals, some of the low income grunt workers. Guess what? Absolutely none of them want to live under an overprotective government, to have a socialized nanny state become our reality. Everyone is strongly independent, and the city is filled with hard working blue collar and white collar people alike, and don't want government intrusion. But they are completely opposite of the conservative mindset in terms of politics.

So this notion of the lazy liberal who wants daddy government to take care of them that is repeated ad nauseum is such a trite, unproductive, misleading claim that I wish would stop being thrown out as fact. Just because there are a couple examples of it doesn't mean that this is what everyone must think. In regards to guns, I have a liberal friend who owns a shotgun and a pistol. He's not looking for the government to confiscate all guns. And I'm sure there's tons more like him.

Ultimately, I'm hoping that these false, stereotypical claims about liberals and conservatives, or libertarians, progressives, and all types would stop, and actual discussion started, instead of everyone creating strawman arguments and deflecting from the actual discussion thats needed. Like I said, I support gun rights, but think something can and should be done to help curb the escalating violence with guns. I'm still waiting to actually hear a proposal, other than heavily arming the populace, that the uninhibited gun rights proponents think would help the problem. Nothing has been proffered to date that I've seen.

I'm right there with you. Left/Right, who gives a shit. and I totally agree that we should all work together to figure out how to curb escalating violence with guns. My only point is that curbing that cannot revolve around the tool itself. Spending time talking about controlling something that is literally impossible to control is silly. Its a waste of time.