My compromise for gun control

Mac

Sorry but that doesn’t address the criticism I’ve levelled at your proposals and the major one that they are not compromises at all.

Can you defend these ideas, because so far that doesn’t seem to be the case?

OK you say they are a work in progress but for us to progress you (and others) need to address the criticism of them.

 

But as pointed out in some detail above what you put forward do not seem to be compromises at all they favour the gun owners while burdening everyone else.

And if you think about it the whole idea of compromise in what seems like a public safety issue seems to me to be missing the point.

I think many people that want prudent gun control are motivated by a desire to reduce harm, of reducing risk. The opposite of that would be a desire to increase the possibility of harm happening and put public safety at risk.

Imagine haggling over compromises in road safety – ‘oh I’ll lets you keep licences but you must let people drink and drive’

I think you would need to have very strong rational arguments to champion an increase in risk rather than trying to reduce it but that does seem to be the desire of the gun lobby when they ask for ‘compromise’

But the gun lobby do not seem to have any strong rational arguments for gun and gun owners not to be regulated in the name of public safety.

Go through one gun issue thread after another here or trawl the internet and the gun lobby arguments don’t stand up - not over crime, not over the protection against government ‘tyranny’ not over anything.

Rather than put up what seem like sham ‘compromises’ the gun lobby first must convince people that there should be compromises over public safety.

I mean if you can convince people that there should be compromises only then we can discuss what they could be.

 

Happily the 'anti gunners' are a small minority. You shouldn't equate people who want improved gun control with anti gun folks.

 

It seems like the whole argument falls apart when they do that tho

 

I addressed the criticisms to the best of my ability. It seems that your main objection is that everyone would be paying for certain services like background checks that may or may not apply to them. My counter argument is that there are many things modern society pays for that may or may not apply to them directly such as free or cheap college, healthcare, government housing, etc. All of which benefits society as a whole even if the individual doesn't need them.

Since the US has more firearms than people and it's a protected individual right, I believe that gun safety courses benefits everyone overall regardless if you want to own firearms or not. Therefore, if we are to have mandatory or universal training and background checks, it should be as cheap and accessable to the public as possible.

However, if running a universal background check on DLs is prohibitely expensive for the government, I offered an alternative where simply anyone who is a prohibited person gets a marked DL. As for mental health exams, I would have to see the evidence mandatory exams would reduce gun violence before I would offer it as a compromise that it only applies to gun owners.

 

You'll have to provide evidence that such things like national reciprocity and no so called assualt weapons bans increase risk before you can compare it to drunk driving. A complete ban on so called assualt weapons is actually a rare thing among developed countries. The British Isles, Australia, and recently New Zealand are practically the only countries that implemented such bans and they don't have much of a drastic difference in mass shootings as their neighbors.

But you still didn't answer my question. What compromise would you propose?

 

I don't know man. It's hard to believe. Once you've taken the guns... there are fewer I would imagine.

 

I was speaking about Britain vs the rest of the EU.

 

ok. Thank you for that.

 

Pew pew . Bang bang your dead..

 

My compromise is don't break into my house and I won't shoot you.

 

Mac

And that’s the thing does ease of access to guns ‘benefits society as a whole’ as I’ve said several times having ease of access to guns in the US doesn’t seem of benefit to US society and could be argued to be actually detrimental to US society. I mean it seems to result in many more deaths than other comparable countries for little or no material gain.

The first would seem irrelevant except to highlight a symptom of the problem and as pointed out the second is disputed and many see it as an anachronism in the modern world anyway that results in no societal benefit.

Again I would point out that to drive a car on the public highway you need a licence (showing you have passed the tests and I believe the cost of a licence in the US can range anywhere from $20 to $1,000 and of course you have had to have done the training)

You also need to be fit to drive (people in the UK can be excluded for bad eyesight or if they are prone to seizures etc) so you may need medical certificate.

Then there is insurance (I believe that is on average around $1,500 in US) and of course you must keep the car road worthy (in the UK you need to pass an annual MOT test that is around £35 and then the coast of any repairs).

These cost are covered by the driver.

 

Mac

But you first proposed it as a means of weeding out the mentally unfit and irresponsible form gun ownership and now you are saying you don’t believe it would work.

This makes me begin to doubt you are arguing this in good faith.

Why the sudden change of mind?

 

Mac

Well ease of access to firearms seems to increase risk within US society as show by the high levels of gun related deaths.

Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.

US –2011 10.3

England and Wales – 0.22

France - 3.00

Germany – 1.10

Luxembourg - 2.02

Switzerland - 3.04

Homicides by any method per 100.000

US - 2011: 5.1

England and Wales – 0.93

France : 1.2

Germany 0.8

Luxembourg 0.8

Switzerland 0.57

Gun related homicides per 100,000

US 2011: 3.6

England and Wales 0.06

France - 0.22

Germany - 0.2

Luxembourg 0.62

Switzerland 0.16

 

Mac

Again I would point out that your proposals when examined were not really compromises

And I did give an answer I can represent it if you wish -

I see the problems associated with ease of access to guns as a public safety issue like (but not completely like) the problems that arise by ease of access to cars.

So the whole idea of compromising over public safety seems strange as that would be like haggling over compromises in road safety – ‘oh I’ll lets you keep licences but you must let people drink and drive’

I think you would need to have very strong rational arguments to champion an increase in risk rather than trying to reduce it and the gun lobby do not seem to have any strong rational arguments for gun and gun owners not to be regulated in the name of public safety.

So in conclusion rather than put up what seem like sham ‘compromises’ the gun lobby first must convince people that there should be compromises over public safety.

I mean if you can convince people that there should be compromises only then can we discuss what they could be.

 

Or...don't go to church, school, the movies, your own home, run a red light, etc. You can be shot for a lot less than breaking into someone's home.

 

Dice

And to add to bagel don't you see how ineffectual that is for tackling that kind of crime

Most break-ins to houses occur when people are not there so to tackle that kind of crime you (or someone else) would have to remain in your house all the time.

But what is worse is that many gun owners don’t secure their guns so then the gun falls into the hands of criminals

Privately owned firearms are stolen in America with alarming frequency: between 300,000 and 600,000 every year, according to a [2016] survey of gun ownership by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. At the high end, that’s more than 1,600 guns stolen every day, more than one every minute.

 

My compromise for those who want a bazooka for self defense is they can only shoot it at someone who's breaking into their house

 

You can have national reciprocity and so called assault weapons while simultaneously vetting who has access to both. How you do that with our current understanding of the second amendment is up for debate.

Excluding the US, the two nations that actually has a ban on specific weapons like pistols and so called assualt weapons don't have that much of an edge over the other countries that allow ownership. In fact, England and Wales almost has twice the homicide rate than Switzerland and Switzerland is almost at the bottom with gun related homicides. So you're making my point. There isn't any conclusive evidence banning certain types of firearms reduces gun related deaths. It's who has access to firearms, not what type of firearms are available that we need to focus on.

 

I guess in my mind sacrificing access to a certain type/caliber/whatever of weapon or bump-stock/extended magazine/pistol-grip is a small price to pay for the peace of mind that comes with a law prohibiting.