Official Gun Control Debate Thread II

Recommended Posts

Setnom    692

In my opinion, this problem of frequent mass shootings in the US will never be minimized. Never, let alone completely solved. There simply isn't a general will among the US population to face it head on, to do whatever sacrificies required. Given the prevalence of circumstances that lead to this (already talked about in the topic), I think it's an unsolvable issue with an impossible solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+FloatingFatMan    13,400
3 hours ago, DocM said:

**   here in MI and some other states there is no minimum  hunting age, just that a Mentor Hunter supervise. In many areas this can actually double the number of hunters over the officially listed "over age 16"numbers.

Why do you need to hunt? It's 2017 not 1017.  Go to a supermarket.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Raze    13,692
3 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Why do you need to hunt? It's 2017 not 1017.  Go to a supermarket.

Who said anything about needing to hunt, though many do in Alaska. "Gathering of subsistence food continues to be an important economic and cultural activity for many Alaska Natives."  Source

 

I and others here in the Midwest and other regions around the country hunt for food also, venison is delicious.  And because of the large numbers of deer in some areas, state Natural Resource Officers will hand out extra tags to cull for overpopulation reasons and to prevent die offs during the winter due to starvation.  I enjoy pheasant and quail too.  The money for licenses and tags goes towards conservation efforts and studies.  Another plus is it's cheaper to hunt and have the carcass processed/butchered and frozen than buying expensive beef at the supermarket.  Others hunt wild boar, whose excess numbers can wreck havoc on the environment, plus the meat is very tasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wv@gt    1,226
8 hours ago, trag3dy said:

Expand on this. What gun types do you think need more regulation and what the current regulations, if any, are if they are not adequate?

 

Nothing against you but I've noticed quite a few people who say things like this don't actually know what the current laws and restrictions are.

 

7 hours ago, DocM said:

They also don't understand the degree of commonality between common hunting weapons and supposedly military cartridges such as the AR-15's 5.56mm NATO, which is based on the .223 Remington commonly used to hunt small game and vermin. The 7.62mm NATO is based on the 308 Winchester so commonly used for deer hunting, which is in turn based on .300 Savage - originally used in the Savage Model 99 lever action so popular for hunting in brush or carried in a saddle sheath. 

 

Ill just say that I can admit I don't know, I lean on you all to educate us on that and I can do my own research as well. You guys definitely know more about guns than I do and probably many of us on here. However can't we start with the most popular guns that have been used, I believe its an AR-15 correct me if I am wrong. I'm not saying an all-out ban, but just some sort of regulation. 

Not saying you all directly, but I feel like whenever we have these debates, Gun owners sort of turn into smart-asses about guns and non gun owners break things down to very simplistic terms. There is an educational aspect that needs to go into all of this. 

 

Again, you guys educate us, but from my view, I see heavy regulations on things like grenades, rocket launchers and yet that has prevented usage on those. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ncoday    178
20 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

No, a spoons purpose is to transfer items from one place to another, usually food to a mouth.

 

Gun's were invented to make it easier to kill people from further away and at a greater speed, that's it.  They weren't invented to help people score bulls eyes or to shoot yourself some dinner. They were invented during and for the purpose of war, nothing else.

 

Sure you can use both a spoon and a gun for other things, but that doesn't alter their intended design purpose.  You can even modify them so they can't really do their original purpose, but that doesn't alter the original purpose one iota. A gun is for killing. Who, what and why of who is killed is irrelevant to that purpose.

You say that a gun's original purpose is to kill people, but what empirical evidence/research do you have? (BTW - Any group with an established agenda doesn't count unless they are quoting a non-partisan group's research)

 

I am willing to change my mind, but not just because you say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rippleman    2,703
6 hours ago, DevTech said:

The "leading theory" of why there are so many mass shootings in the U.S. is just the sheer number of guns. Period.

 

No, the leading theory is too many people who shouldn't own guns are why there is so many mass shootings. It is just simpler to say "there is too many guns" to make the statement in fewer words. For your information, I have guns, teenage son owns hunting rifle, dad owns 22 rifles including 4 pistols. Can some people own guns? Yes. Can most... nope.  There are simply too many idiots, too many crazies, too many stupids, too many hotheads, too many tough guys... Should guns be banned? No. BUT society should just get A LOT more selective in who is allowed guns. 

37 minutes ago, ncoday said:

You say that a gun's original purpose is to kill people, but what empirical evidence/research do you have? 

It was designed to kill in war... in the form of cannons and big metal balls in the 12th century. these cannons become miniaturized for handheld use for war in the 15th century.  if you don't know they are designed to kill, I don't know anyway how to  explain it too you. 

Edited by Rippleman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+FloatingFatMan    13,400
54 minutes ago, ncoday said:

You say that a gun's original purpose is to kill people, but what empirical evidence/research do you have? (BTW - Any group with an established agenda doesn't count unless they are quoting a non-partisan group's research)

 

I am willing to change my mind, but not just because you say so.

It's called history. Go to a library and pick up a book about the history of warfare and weapons some time.  I know American schools have a bad habit of only teaching American history, but come now... There's only 300 years or so worth of it and guns are a wee bit older...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,777
5 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Why do you need to hunt? It's 2017 not 1017.  Go to a supermarket.

There are many reasons not the least of which is subsistence. Many people in the US still live in far rural communities, and hunting puts meat in the freezer. Some suburbanites and even urban folks also go hunting for meat, deer and other game being widespread throughout many states.

 

It's not unusual for people in the Detroit suburbs to have a deer in their front yard in the morning. We have an overabundance. So many of the local airport needs to have a special team just to keep them off the runways.

 

Another reason, mentioned above, is because many game meats are delicious. Venison is very tasty, I personally have a taste for antelope, and small game is available in such large numbers that you can pretty well fill a freezer with a few hunts in the fall. 

 

 Another part of it is supporting our Department of Natural Resources, with hunting/fishing/trapping licensing fees paying for many of their game management and fisheries programs, and providing the service to DNR;  culling herds.

 

Culling

 

Generally speaking, there are 8 to 10 dose for every buck whitetail deer and each doe typically delivers twins after each mating season. Though we have predators like coyotes, coywolves, cougars and wolves there aren't enough of them to control the deer and other  wildlife populations. Human hunters provide that necessary predation, and their reward they get to take home to meat. At checkpoints, DNR officers examine a sampling of the deer taken in order to assess the herds condition, and the now smaller heard is more capable of surviving a frigid winter where in the northern US temperatures can drop to -20°F to -100°F.  

 

I've been in the woods after such a winter when the hunt did not take as many deer as anticipated, and it was a sobering sight, with starved deer carcasses laying all over the woods. Not just bucks and does but most of that years fawns, and the rest of the herd looks terrible with many emaciated. This puts the entire herd at risk. 

 

In Michigan, hunters  have to take about 900,000 deer a year for the deer population to achieve balance with the food supply. Otherwise the herd can grow to 2 to 2.5 million deer, which is too many for the woodlands to support so they end up not only in people's gardens and farmers crops but they also end up colliding with cars, putting humans at risk. 

 

In an average year Michigan alone has 60,000 car-deer collisions. These are not minor impacts because an adult deer can run 150 to 400 lbs. Imagine hitting that in your little car doing 50-60 miles an hour. It ain't pretty.

 

 

Edited by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trag3dy    3,357
5 hours ago, wv@gt said:

 

Ill just say that I can admit I don't know, I lean on you all to educate us on that and I can do my own research as well. You guys definitely know more about guns than I do and probably many of us on here. However can't we start with the most popular guns that have been used, I believe its an AR-15 correct me if I am wrong. I'm not saying an all-out ban, but just some sort of regulation. 

Not saying you all directly, but I feel like whenever we have these debates, Gun owners sort of turn into smart-asses about guns and non gun owners break things down to very simplistic terms. There is an educational aspect that needs to go into all of this. 

 

Again, you guys educate us, but from my view, I see heavy regulations on things like grenades, rocket launchers and yet that has prevented usage on those. 

 

 

Well, for starters. This is an AR-15:

 

Modified_AR-15.jpeg

 

Looks scary right?

 

Well, functionally, this is also technically an "AR-15", which is just an ordinary hunting rifle:

 

67282-rugermini-14semiautorifle223woodst

 

Both of those guns shoot the exact same ammunition and both of them apart from the actual look of the gun function in the exact same way. So it's not as simple as saying we should just focus on the AR-15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,777

Exactly. 

 

Two of the main features on the military-type weapons is they have mounting rails for accessories and lightweight stocks.  Plastic or black anodized aluminum makes for stocks and mounting hardware which are light, water resistant, and cheap. Flat black makes it so that they don't reflect light. 

 

All these features are as useful for a hunter or a soldier, which is why many hunting rifles now come with black plastic stocks and  can mount accessory rails.  The accessories mounted on these rails can be as mundane as a flashlight, a laser sight, a signal beacon or a combination.  

 

At top is the Ruger 10/22, one of the most popular .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles in North America, and often a kids first firearm since 1964. I still have mine.

 

5a08eba939417_Ruger10-221.thumb.jpg.a45266bf41643efe838ee818c3c80e29.jpg

 

These are the same rifle mechanism with different furniture. Images from the Ruger website.  

 

5a08ec12f206c_Ruger10-222tactical.thumb.jpg.5c97afef24731f24b073413f3a76bfdf.jpg

 

5a08ec2b878e1_Ruger10-222bepinktactical.thumb.jpg.b7626528e2e90e8ee7cc0b9473583514.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    7,246

Pink, black or brown, they're all designed for killing. 

 

Funny how after car crashes, air plane crashes etc... The companies study and implement ways to make them safer, and overall the deaths have gone down because of it, but guns, nope. 

 

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+DevTech    868
1 hour ago, wakjak said:

Pink, black or brown, they're all designed for killing. 

 

Funny how after car crashes, air plane crashes etc... The companies study and implement ways to make them safer, and overall the deaths have gone down because of it, but guns, nope. 

 

:rofl:

That is first of all an analogy and second of all not a very good analogy.

 

1. not much investigation happens after a car crash.

 

we have all seen 200 mph crashes at Indy 500 etc and driver lifts himself out of the wrecked vehicle and walks away yet people die every day in 30 mph crashes. So not much car and attention happening there considering cars that could be made a lot safer simply are not and many many more people die in preventable auto accident deaths than preventable gun deaths.

 

Big business prevents this problem from being addressed. Auto CEOs who should be in jail for this huge cost in human life must just laugh themselves silly at the publicity the mass shootings get.

 

The conclusion of a car crash investigation will be:

 

A. Which insurance company pays the damages.

 

 

2. In the exact opposite to car crashes, airplane crashes are heavily investigated even though far less people are killed in airplane crashes than cars.

 

The conclusion of an air crash investigation will be:

 

A. Pilot error. Result: demotion, firing or revamped training.

 

B. Airplane error. Result: Fix airplane design or maintenance procedures.

 

C: Infrastructure error. Result: fix airports, radars etc as needed.

 

D: Unavoidable error such as unpredictable weather, meteor strike etc. Result: Oh well...

 

 

3. Mass shootings are also heavily investigated.

 

Possible conclusions are:

 

A. Operator error: Mental health issue or Criminal intent. Result: Court system.

 

B. Gun error: not an issue ever, since it functioned according to design and maintenance schedule.

 

C. Infrastructure error: Gun obtained improperly, Operator treated poorly by civilization, Gun not detected by laser equipped robotic drones, Nearby citizens not equipped with guns and unable to help. 

 

 

Conclusions:

 

A. Analogies not very useful and if good analogies can't even be brought to bear, what hope of clear thinking on anything?

 

B. Unlike airplanes, the design of guns do not need improving.

 

C. Many more lives could be saved by a focus on car crashes. The fact that car crashes are a blind spot in this comparison also does not lend much hope for clear thinking.

 

D. Almost nobody disagrees that crazy people should not have access to guns and current procedure need improvement but that would still leave good access to a standard rifle in any democracy, anywhere in the world. There is no forecast for any Western democracy to give up citizen ownership of hunting rifles which means that weapon availability for a mass shooting will always be present in any democracy. It only takes a single rifle. That fact that people in the U.S. collect guns as a hobby does not change the logical fact that a single individual needs only a single rifle and if he owns 100 rifles, he will have to select only one of them to perform a mass shooting unless he uses DNA modification to grow extra arms on his body. The weird focus by people on the number of guns a person owns is plain odd/weird/bizarre/lazy thinking since presumably everyone on Planet Earth knows you can only hold and fire one gun at a time. There has been no cause and effect relationship shown for number of guns and mass shootings. Logically, with just the smallest amount of real thought (not too common these days) having a surplus of guns among people who already own guns cannot possibly enable a mass shooting by a single individual.

 

E. The U.S. has added laws to also restrict gun ownership from men who are guilty of domestic violence. This is 50% of the cause of mass shootings and as a result of the type of investigations that air crashes get, a significant safety measure has been introduced on the infrastructure side.

 

F. The other 50% is unidentified and it seems unlikely a profile could be developed, but one can hope.

 

G. It is horrible that people are harmed by other people with guns (and other weapons) but by creating two false sides to a false debate where there is no science that is being undertaken to inform anyone means that no solutions will be found until people shut up and start thinking by using the scientific method. Make an informed hypothesis on a possible cause and then do the freakin testing to show that the hypothesis provides insight not because it makes sense but because there is an actual tested cause and effect relationship.

 

You can have an incredible IQ and observe the world to determine that it is made up of Earth, Fire, Water and Air and then write it down in your ancient Greek, but until the Scientific Method came along, true insight was not available. The gun thing is Social and Psychological Science, both young sciences that are currently murky and inaccurate but are the best tools to bring to bear on the issue instead of uninformed debate...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    7,246

Ah yes more excuses as to why nothing should ever be done about gun control. Fantastic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+FloatingFatMan    13,400
2 hours ago, DevTech said:

we have all seen 200 mph crashes at Indy 500 etc and driver lifts himself out of the wrecked vehicle and walks away yet people die every day in 30 mph crashes. So not much car and attention happening there considering cars that could be made a lot safer simply are not and many many more people die in preventable auto accident deaths than preventable gun deaths

That's because race cars have this little thing called a roll cage inside them, unlike regular cars. And no, you can't put a roll cage inside a regular car as that would make it really really hard for regular people to get inside and make them way more expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+DevTech    868
4 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

That's because race cars have this little thing called a roll cage inside them, unlike regular cars. And no, you can't put a roll cage inside a regular car as that would make it really really hard for regular people to get inside and make them way more expensive.

R & D - Given the size of the car industry, it is a matter of research and employing enough scientists and engineers and then getting the world comfortable with the cost of it by creating an industry standard or prototypical government regulation. This sort of stuff is done all the time in many industries.

 

It only takes a minute in this case to think of lots of starting points for a safe design so it is 100% a moral issue.

 

For example, like a simple bolt lock, the car doors can engage their part of the roll cage at the 4 contact points to the main cage. Basically it adds the cost of 3 additional door latches and two "roll cage bars" to every door.

 

Using advanced design and mass production the "cage" can be a titanium/carbon fibre composite or even use carbon nano-tubes so that is does not need to be heavy or bulky.

 

It is simply cheaper to let 30,000 to 60,000 people (moms, dads, children, family, neighbors) die every year...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+DevTech    868
7 hours ago, wakjak said:

Ah yes more excuses as to why nothing should ever be done about gun control. Fantastic. 

It appears something should be done about reading comprehension.

 

Right now, there is zero evidence (correlation is not evidence - causation is evidence) to support the idea that if the current system is properly  managed and enforced that anything at all needs to be done in the area of "gun control" that would save a single additional person.

 

Spouting off the phrase "gun control" as if it is a magic incantation in Harry Potter contributes nothing but noise.

 

Clearly, something more should be done. But that "something" has not been identified and is where everyone's attention should be focused until it is found.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+DevTech    868

The Siege Mentality problem:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opinion/roy-moore-conservative-evangelicals.html

 

"Gun Control" versus "Gun Nuts" is a false debate.

 

Science needs to be given funding and room to yield informative results. Then the science needs to be read and understood. Then, the allocation of resources (including laws) can be targeted at a process that can have a real cause and effect impact on the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+warwagon    9,943

While I think guns are great and they should not be banned. If both sides had to meet in the middle, I would have no problem banning Bump Stocks. What exactly is a practical application for a Bump Stock?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+DevTech    868
3 hours ago, warwagon said:

While I think guns are great and they should not be banned. If both sides had to meet in the middle, I would have no problem banning Bump Stocks. What exactly is a practical application for a Bump Stock?

 

 

According to answers previously in this thread, the main application would be to fight off a Zombie Apocalypse where you need to fire into oncoming hordes with no accuracy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+warwagon    9,943
Just now, DevTech said:

According to answers previously in this thread, the main application would be to fight off a Zombie Apocalypse where you need to fire into oncoming hordes with no accuracy.

 

yep, spray and pray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,777
On 11/14/2017 at 10:36 AM, wakjak said:

Ah yes more excuses as to why nothing should ever be done about gun control. Fantastic. 

Not excuses, reasons - mostly illegal be and  precedence from other areas where accidental, defensive, suicidal, or criminal deaths occur. 

 

Not everything is as simplistic as you seem to think it is, or should be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.