Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Where do criminals get guns and how can we stop them?

Jinn · 01-24-2011, 12:20 PM

I swear I'm not trying to threadjack you Will.

I have found myself yelling at the TV as of late, and much as I like Maddow, Oldermann (well, not anymore, I guess), and Maher I think they're pressing the button on this one a little much. I don't usually yell.

I'm the black sheep liberal who owns guns and strongly believes in the 2nd Amendment, and I feel like Tucson is being used as a political tool to get gun-control pushed hrough the legislative process with Tucson fresh on the psyche - not very fair, in my opinion.

Concerns about protecting the life of humans should be the highest priority of law, but I think it's incredibly disingenuous to feel like we should do something *now* about gun violence simply because of recency.

Gun violence is not the leading cause of death of humans. 19 (Nineteen) people were shot at in Tucson that day, and as tragic as it is, if we're sloppy with the odds I'm sure more people died of heart disease and automobile-related accidents (or even starvation, worldwide) than did in Tucson.

Crazy people *will* get guns no matter what we do. Criminals *will* get guns no matter what we do. So we have to balance reasonable restriction, the time and money involved in those restrictions, against their success rate and the actual incidence of death involved.

Ban high-cap magazines IN HANDGUNS without a class III, I can support, that's reasonable. But restricting private party sale, requiring more invasive FFL backgrounding/psych eval, I'm not so sure. Techonology advances at a breakneck pace, and we will quite often invent things that somehow break the lethality barrier, and simply become too lethal to a mass of people that we limit it to trusted dealers and military members. I think high-cap (15+) in a handgun approaches the same mass-lethality barrier as a fully-automatic rifle. Certainly, my semi-automatic rifle has 30-round magazines, but I can't conceal it like I can a handgun, and I think that is a meaningful difference. If it's concealable, it should (arbitrarily, mind you) hold about half as many rounds as the maximum capacity of a unconcealed weapon, and I think that's fair.

I know it reads like one big "well these other things are worse!" but I stand by the simple assertion that we're better served pursuing reasonable restrictions and nothing more. If you could propose a reasonable, non-invasive way to keep more guns out of the hands of criminals and wackos I'm all for it, but it will never cure it, only treat it. And then we're in the land of triage; do our efforts and money really diminish it enough to justify it?

01-24-2011, 12:20 PM	#23 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I swear I'm not trying to threadjack you Will. I have found myself yelling at the TV as of late, and much as I like Maddow, Oldermann (well, not anymore, I guess), and Maher I think they're pressing the button on this one a little much. I don't usually yell. I'm the black sheep liberal who owns guns and strongly believes in the 2nd Amendment, and I feel like Tucson is being used as a political tool to get gun-control pushed hrough the legislative process with Tucson fresh on the psyche - not very fair, in my opinion. Concerns about protecting the life of humans should be the highest priority of law, but I think it's incredibly disingenuous to feel like we should do something now about gun violence simply because of recency. Gun violence is not the leading cause of death of humans. 19 (Nineteen) people were shot at in Tucson that day, and as tragic as it is, if we're sloppy with the odds I'm sure more people died of heart disease and automobile-related accidents (or even starvation, worldwide) than did in Tucson. Crazy people will get guns no matter what we do. Criminals will get guns no matter what we do. So we have to balance reasonable restriction, the time and money involved in those restrictions, against their success rate and the actual incidence of death involved. Ban high-cap magazines IN HANDGUNS without a class III, I can support, that's reasonable. But restricting private party sale, requiring more invasive FFL backgrounding/psych eval, I'm not so sure. Techonology advances at a breakneck pace, and we will quite often invent things that somehow break the lethality barrier, and simply become too lethal to a mass of people that we limit it to trusted dealers and military members. I think high-cap (15+) in a handgun approaches the same mass-lethality barrier as a fully-automatic rifle. Certainly, my semi-automatic rifle has 30-round magazines, but I can't conceal it like I can a handgun, and I think that is a meaningful difference. If it's concealable, it should (arbitrarily, mind you) hold about half as many rounds as the maximum capacity of a unconcealed weapon, and I think that's fair. I know it reads like one big "well these other things are worse!" but I stand by the simple assertion that we're better served pursuing reasonable restrictions and nothing more. If you could propose a reasonable, non-invasive way to keep more guns out of the hands of criminals and wackos I'm all for it, but it will never cure it, only treat it. And then we're in the land of triage; do our efforts and money really diminish it enough to justify it? __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 01-24-2011 at 12:24 PM..