Gun Control

[HungryHobo]

But why the position that guns result in a quality of life degradation for ordinary citizens? We have self-defense (which has certainly saved many people, regardless of the specifics), but also sport shooting/recreation, and hunting.

I think he was refering to the gangs rather than the guns. hence saying that the gus wouldn't make much difference to that element.

[Azrael]

But why the position that guns result in a quality of life degradation for ordinary citizens? We have self-defense (which has certainly saved many people, regardless of the specifics), but also sport shooting/recreation, and hunting.

I think he was referring to the gangs rather than the guns. Hence saying that the guns wouldn't make much difference to that element.

Yeah, pizzazz parsed both thoughts in that post backwards.

The deaths of innocent bystanders to gang violence occur with some frequency, although I couldn't confirm statistical relevance. Those events aren't classified as accidents; they are homicides.

The major impact of gangs on the general population is degradation in quality of life. Guns are not the predominant factor.

[pizzazz]

But why the position that guns result in a quality of life degradation for ordinary citizens? We have self-defense (which has certainly saved many people, regardless of the specifics), but also sport shooting/recreation, and hunting.

I think he was referring to the gangs rather than the guns. Hence saying that the guns wouldn't make much difference to that element.

Yeah, pizzazz parsed both thoughts in that post backwards.

The deaths of innocent bystanders to gang violence occur with some frequency, although I couldn't confirm statistical relevance. Those events aren't classified as accidents; they are homicides.

The major impact of gangs on the general population is degradation in quality of life. Guns are not the predominant factor.

Ah, I see. I thought you were making one point (stray bullets from gang shootings cause a QoL degradation) rather than 2 separate points.

[Tyndmyr]

Ah, I see. I thought you were making one point (stray bullets from gang shootings cause a QoL degradation) rather than 2 separate points.

Also fair, I suppose. Stray bullets do nobody any favors. I do agree that gangs and gang culture are a QoL problem even if shooting is disregarded, though. Vandalism, for instance, is a pretty easy tie to make. Or street crime. Gangs without guns would probably still be more or less as bad for society as they are now.

[pizzazz]

Ah, I see. I thought you were making one point (stray bullets from gang shootings cause a QoL degradation) rather than 2 separate points.

Also fair, I suppose. Stray bullets do nobody any favors. I do agree that gangs and gang culture are a QoL problem even if shooting is disregarded, though. Vandalism, for instance, is a pretty easy tie to make. Or street crime. Gangs without guns would probably still be more or less as bad for society as they are now.

Right, the real problem here is the War on Drugs. The market for drugs exists, but without the government protecting their property, gangs form and arm themselves in order to do what the police will not.

[morriswalters]

That's a different way of thinking about street gangs. I thought they were the outcome of poverty and poor social cohesion.

[Thesh]

Street gangs existed before the explosion of the drug trade, but the level of violence that we associate with gangs didn't happen until they started selling drugs and fighting over territory.

[morriswalters]

Street gangs have always been violent. The availability of guns at affordable prices made them worse. There used to be a very interesting display at the FBI building in downtown Washington. Home built guns confiscated from gang members. Ah, modern manufacturing.

[Thesh]

Street gangs have always been violent. The availability of guns at affordable prices made them worse.

Gangs haven't always been this violent; it used to be more like west side story (hand to hand fighting, with knives and baseball bats, and choreography). Guns have always been inexpensive and highly available in the US, but there was no reason for gangs to arm themselves so heavily and start shooting each other until drug territory because such a valuable commodity.

[morriswalters]

From the Wikipedia'

A wide variety of gangs, such as the T gang, The Order of Assassins, Adam the Leper's gang, Penny Mobs, Indian Thugs, Catford Massif, Chinese Triads, Snakehead, Japanese Yakuza, Irish mob, Pancho Villa's Villistas, Dead Rabbits, American Old West outlaw gangs, Bowery Boys, Chasers, Italian mafia, Jewish mafia, and Russian Mafia crime families have existed for centuries. According to some estimates the Thuggee gangs in India murdered 1 million people between 1740 and 1840.[6]

Since I couldn't find historical data on gun prices, I will have to defer to you knowledge on pricing for handguns.

[Thesh]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about something relevant.

[morriswalters]

I was clarifying a point on gangs, on gun control there is not a whole lot to say. In my naive past I thought banning them or at least controlling them had some value. I no longer believe that to be true. While the US may be gun central they are now so widely available and so easy to get anywhere that they are impossible to control through legislation. As a method for protection I see it as a net wash. If it makes someone feel better, then they should have at it. I haven't found the need. I worry more about stray gunfire than direct assaults. I live in a wood framed home with no brick veneer. Shoot off anything with a good load and it's going to come visit me. I have given serious thought to placing some type of armor around mine and my wife's bed, but I decided that was an over reaction. At least one person has been shot within 300 feet of my house, and that was a domestic dispute. I've seen quite a bit of gun violence without ever being involved.

[Azrael]

Right, the real problem here is the War on Drugs. The market for drugs exists, but without the government protecting their property, gangs form and arm themselves in order to do what the police will not.

No. Just no.

Gangs have existed and been fighting over territory long before the War on Drugs -- see morris' link. I'm not defending the war or drugs specifically, but let's at least pretend to acknowledge history? Sure the drug trade is as critical to current gangs as gambling (Sicilian), alcohol (Capone) and votes (Tammany Hall/Five Points etc) were to prior incarnations. But it didn't beget gang behavior.

[Cartel formation, especially in central/south America? Yeah, who different issue]

Thesh's argument about the escalation in firepower is interesting, but I think it's far too exclusive to ignore the effect that supply has outright -- especially without any actual data. Guns have not always been cheap and easy to acquire historically, but yet the same sort of violence was preexisting.

[Tirian]

Thesh's argument about the escalation in firepower is interesting, but I think it's far too exclusive to ignore the effect that supply has outright -- especially without any actual data. Guns have not always been cheap and easy to acquire historically, but yet the same sort of violence was preexisting.

I just got through reading Fist Stick Knife Gun, Geoffrey Canada's memoir of growing up in the South Bronx in the late 50's and early 60's and then coming back in the early 90's to form what would become the Harlem Children's Zone. I recommend it highly. Canada acknowledges that the existence of violence as a factor in domination or self-advocacy is probably eternal, but the nature of violence changes with the accessibility of weapons. He describes fistfights where he had minutes to contemplate his actions and the worst part of being a newbie in a fistfight was bruises. But put a knife in the hand of that same newbie and ... well, Canada still has the deformed finger to remind him of the stakes. But with guns, there is no time to reflect or lessons to learn, and in the words of the street you're either judged by twelve or carried by six.

[pizzazz]

Right, the real problem here is the War on Drugs. The market for drugs exists, but without the government protecting their property, gangs form and arm themselves in order to do what the police will not.

No. Just no.

Gangs have existed and been fighting over territory long before the War on Drugs -- see morris' link. I'm not defending the war or drugs specifically, but let's at least pretend to acknowledge history? Sure the drug trade is as critical to current gangs as gambling (Sicilian), alcohol (Capone) and votes (Tammany Hall/Five Points etc) were to prior incarnations. But it didn't beget gang behavior.

What? How do you even... you practically just named the gangs that went along those three things. I know prohibition era gangs were very violent, and I believe Tammany Hall and co. were quite violent as well. I'm not sure about gambling; what time period and place are you thinking about?

[Cartel formation, especially in central/south America? Yeah, who different issue]

How so? It's basically the same story. Illegality forces the market underground, suppliers take the protection of their product upon themselves, organized crime and massive violence result.

Thesh's argument about the escalation in firepower is interesting, but I think it's far too exclusive to ignore the effect that supply has outright -- especially without any actual data. Guns have not always been cheap and easy to acquire historically, but yet the same sort of violence was preexisting.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Your last half-sentence seems to be admitting that gang violence predates easily accessible guns.

[morriswalters]

Gangs exist to protect their members, and to give them common cause. If it wasn't drugs it would be something else. It has been something else. Society always has restrictions on something. Women, gambling, what have you. The drug trade is merely more lucrative, and considerably more dangerous because of the availability of weapons. If you took away drugs, they wouldn't go away they would simply gravitate to something else. And take their violence with them. Quite possibly a shadow government with it's own taxes. The organized crime syndicates control a lot of businesses and one of them has been protection.

[HungryHobo]

Gangs exist to protect their members, and to give them common cause. If it wasn't drugs it would be something else. It has been something else. Society always has restrictions on something. Women, gambling, what have you. The drug trade is merely more lucrative, and considerably more dangerous because of the availability of weapons. If you took away drugs, they wouldn't go away they would simply gravitate to something else. And take their violence with them. Quite possibly a shadow government with it's own taxes. The organized crime syndicates control a lot of businesses and one of them has been protection.

They still expand and contract to fit the size of their market.
If there wasn't so much money less would stay in organised crime. It'd never disappear entirely but it's economics, not magic.

Freakonomics had an interesting take on it: a huge part of the problem is that a lot of poor minority kids genuinely have no prospects in life, the highest they can imagine getting in life, looking at their surroundings, is the head of the local gang because it's a visible person to who's position there's a clear if godawful path.

It also pointed out that before the drug trade there was a lot more change in the upper levels of the gangs: young guys would reach the top and after a few years they'd quit because there wasn't any real money in it and they were getting older. When crack came along there was suddenly money and the gangleadership became very static.

[Azrael]

Right, the real problem here is the War on Drugs. The market for drugs exists, but without the government protecting their property, gangs form and arm themselves in order to do what the police will not.

No. Just no.

Gangs have existed and been fighting over territory long before the War on Drugs -- see morris' link. I'm not defending the war or drugs specifically, but let's at least pretend to acknowledge history? Sure the drug trade is as critical to current gangs as gambling (Sicilian), alcohol (Capone) and votes (Tammany Hall/Five Points etc) were to prior incarnations. But it didn't beget gang behavior.

What? How do you even... you practically just named the gangs that went along those three things. I know prohibition era gangs were very violent, and I believe Tammany Hall and co. were quite violent as well. I'm not sure about gambling; what time period and place are you thinking about?

Thesh's argument about the escalation in firepower is interesting, but I think it's far too exclusive to ignore the effect that supply has outright -- especially without any actual data. Guns have not always been cheap and easy to acquire historically, but yet the same sort of violence was preexisting.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Your last half-sentence seems to be admitting that gang violence predates easily accessible guns.

You really need to up the reading comprehension here. Yes, I just named the driving forces behind historic gangs. Yes, I'm demonstrating that gang violence predates both guns and drugs.

The war on drugs didn't invent gangs, they'd otherwise exist and always have. If it wasn't drugs it would (still) be something else. As history shows, they change and adapt to supply whatever the demand calls for. Production cartels may be different story, as those exist how and where they are specifically because that's where the drugs can be produced.

Nor can you point at drug competition alone to explain the escalation in gun usage, as gang violence (without guns) is long standing; the supply-side effects must be examined, not just dismissed outright as Thesh did by claiming only demand-side causes. As an aside, I wonder how much of a chicken/egg effect this has with the militarization of the police force -- and if the invention of bullet proof vests and then armor piercing rounds has a traceable effect on anything.

[Tyndmyr]

Right, the real problem here is the War on Drugs. The market for drugs exists, but without the government protecting their property, gangs form and arm themselves in order to do what the police will not.

No. Just no.

Gangs have existed and been fighting over territory long before the War on Drugs -- see morris' link. I'm not defending the war or drugs specifically, but let's at least pretend to acknowledge history? Sure the drug trade is as critical to current gangs as gambling (Sicilian), alcohol (Capone) and votes (Tammany Hall/Five Points etc) were to prior incarnations. But it didn't beget gang behavior.

[Cartel formation, especially in central/south America? Yeah, who different issue]

Thesh's argument about the escalation in firepower is interesting, but I think it's far too exclusive to ignore the effect that supply has outright -- especially without any actual data. Guns have not always been cheap and easy to acquire historically, but yet the same sort of violence was preexisting.

Well, the thing is, all the big gangs have had access to some kind of money. Gambling, alcohol, drugs...these are all social vices from which money can be extracted. Votes? Well, same, more or less. Large organizations require currency to become powerful and well equipped, so subverting the source of their cash is definitely a viable strategy against them. I'm sure that without the war on drugs, we'd still have some gang crime...but it'd be vastly less powerful/well armed as compared to now.

Well, at least, until society bans something else that a large proportion of society wants. Give them markets to exploit, and you give them potential power.

[morriswalters]

I'm not sure what to make of this discussion. If the idea is that drug interdiction causes drugs to become valuable enough to smuggle, well sure. So what? Legalizing drugs would probably make things better in the short term. But in the long term the forces that drive gangs would still be there. And they will be directed somewhere. And the weapons wouldn't go away.

[Laserdan]

I'm not sure what to make of this discussion. If the idea is that drug interdiction causes drugs to become valuable enough to smuggle, well sure. So what? Legalizing drugs would probably make things better in the short term. But in the long term the forces that drive gangs would still be there. And they will be directed somewhere. And the weapons wouldn't go away.

To me, your comment sounds like that: "Let's not legalize drugs because gangs would then use other business opportunities".

Well, what are they gonna turn to, I ask you? Human trafficking, prostitution, exploitation, arms smuggling? Breaking news, they already do that. Taking away their most basic, most stable and most valuable source of income is surely more helpful than leaving it to them. And things do get better in the long run, too - there are at least three countries in Europe showing this. And it's not that it just becomes magically valuable only because of illegality - there's also a huge part called "demand that can not be satisfied otherwise".

Whenever basic human needs are pointlessly restricted, it completely undermines authority, trust in authority and, by extension, the belief in democracy because people see an unjust and cruel system. At least I know that I feel uneasy and anxious around police all the time, no matter if I'm innocent or not.

That's why I'm as a former hardcore anti-gun person reconsidering my position, standing firmly on "undecided"-ground for now. Philosophically it's a very easy question for me (= no gun prohibition), but there ARE effects to be taken into account in the real world.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not sure what to make of this discussion. If the idea is that drug interdiction causes drugs to become valuable enough to smuggle, well sure. So what? Legalizing drugs would probably make things better in the short term. But in the long term the forces that drive gangs would still be there. And they will be directed somewhere. And the weapons wouldn't go away.

They would still exist, but be less wealthy, less large, and less powerful. This seems like a useful end in itself.

Edit: I definitely agree that we should have a society that encourages trust and cooperation with law enforcement. From that standpoint, unenforceable laws definitely are a negative.

[morriswalters]

No, let's not legalize all drugs because most are inherently dangerous, this from someone who has consumed his fair share. I just don't believe in fairy tales like the idea that making drugs legal will make the world a better place and end crime. As a practical matter probably the best solution is to make the drugs legal and have the government use them to manipulate and pacify the poor. Of course I find that morally repugnant. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

Edit: I definitely agree that we should have a society that encourages trust and cooperation with law enforcement. From that standpoint, unenforceable laws definitely are a negative.

By unenforceable, I guess you mean laws you don't like. Most laws are unenforceable, per se. Violations of the law happen on a daily basis. And most violators will never be caught and charged much less convicted for those violations. Most will never be noticed at all.

[Tyndmyr]

No, let's not legalize all drugs because most are inherently dangerous, this from someone who has consumed his fair share. I just don't believe in fairy tales like the idea that making drugs legal will make the world a better place and end crime. As a practical matter probably the best solution is to make the drugs legal and have the government use them to manipulate and pacify the poor. Of course I find that morally repugnant. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

Logically, you wouldn't jump in one day to "all drugs are legal". You'd probably start by decriminalizing drugs with a fairly low possibility to harm people, like pot. It may turn out that some drugs can't be decriminalized without causing more harm than they currently do. Such is life. But we can at least decrease the available space for illegal profit, and thus, decrease the power of the gangs.

Edit: I definitely agree that we should have a society that encourages trust and cooperation with law enforcement. From that standpoint, unenforceable laws definitely are a negative.

By unenforceable, I guess you mean laws you don't like. Most laws are unenforceable, per se. Violations of the law happen on a daily basis. And most violators will never be caught and charged much less convicted for those violations. Most will never be noticed at all.

Why would I mean that? I never mentioned 100% enforcement as a prerequisite...there are degrees of enforceability. Let's say you banned semiconductor manufacturing. This is something that requires pretty fair amounts of industry, tech, and people. It's just inherently hard for it to be violated.

On the flip side, let's look at attempting to ban knives/stabbing implements. The darned things are just too easy to make. Anyone can do it. It is a vastly less enforceable law.

Un-enforceability is, of course, not the only reason why a law would be bad, but it's a pretty notable one.

[morriswalters]

This seems to have wandered away from gun control. No matter what you pick to enforce it will leave a group of people who want it. And if they want it bad enough they will pay a premium to get it. When I think about pot and remember the things I went through to acquire it, and what I got from it when I did, I laugh myself stupid. However your mileage may vary. Most drugs have been around long enough to know the hazards. The morphiates and cocaine in particular. There is no doubt. The same can be said for meth. So even if you legalized pot the money machine would still exist.

The reason that you don't ban stabbing or cutting instruments is that almost anything can be made to serve those purposes. Guns, contrary to popular opinion are force multipliers used to kill. As a tool, long weapons in private hands make sense in an environment that has a use for them. Pistols less so. Automatic weapons like machine guns, none at all, they are a weapons of war. However they are here and not going away, ever.

[Tyndmyr]

This seems to have wandered away from gun control. No matter what you pick to enforce it will leave a group of people who want it. And if they want it bad enough they will pay a premium to get it. When I think about pot and remember the things I went through to acquire it, and what I got from it when I did, I laugh myself stupid. However your mileage may vary. Most drugs have been around long enough to know the hazards. The morphiates and cocaine in particular. There is no doubt. The same can be said for meth. So even if you legalized pot the money machine would still exist.

Yeah, but changing the size of the money machine changes the resources gangs have. So, it's still relevant. It's all a matter of degree.

The reason that you don't ban stabbing or cutting instruments is that almost anything can be made to serve those purposes. Guns, contrary to popular opinion are force multipliers used to kill. As a tool, long weapons in private hands make sense in an environment that has a use for them. Pistols less so. Automatic weapons like machine guns, none at all, they are a weapons of war. However they are here and not going away, ever.

Well, that is another reason, yes. But the sheer enforceability of such laws should definitely also be a concern.

Guns CAN be force multipliers used to kill. So can knives. Or gasoline and a match. However, the practical outcome is that most privately owned guns are used for hunting or target shooting, not war or crime. Most knives are used for mundane purposes. Most gas is burned as fuel. Legal machine guns are not used in crime. They are also used to kill targets.

Now, if you consider the use of a machine gun to make holes in paper excessive...I'd agree with you. But it's also pretty harmless, and if we banned every activity many people found excessive/unnecessary but harmless, life would be really boring.

[morriswalters]

Guns are always force multipliers, so for that matter are knives and clubs. I just don't use one to butter my bread. But that's irrelevant. Enjoy your machine gun, but I don't want to hear it, see it or have to duck because you want to shoot it.

[Tyndmyr]

Guns are always force multipliers, so for that matter are knives and clubs. I just don't use one to butter my bread. But that's irrelevant. Enjoy your machine gun, but I don't want to hear it, see it or have to duck because you want to shoot it.

....have you ever even seen a machine gun in real life? They're pretty uncommon, and I've literally never seen one outside a range or gun store(or military, but that's a different kettle of fish).

If you have to duck out of the way of machine gun fire in your everyday life, you're not living in the US.

[Laserdan]

No, let's not legalize all drugs because most are inherently dangerous, this from someone who has consumed his fair share. I just don't believe in fairy tales like the idea that making drugs legal will make the world a better place and end crime. As a practical matter probably the best solution is to make the drugs legal and have the government use them to manipulate and pacify the poor. Of course I find that morally repugnant. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

Edit: I definitely agree that we should have a society that encourages trust and cooperation with law enforcement. From that standpoint, unenforceable laws definitely are a negative.

By unenforceable, I guess you mean laws you don't like. Most laws are unenforceable, per se. Violations of the law happen on a daily basis. And most violators will never be caught and charged much less convicted for those violations. Most will never be noticed at all.

Well that is not the point - not at all. The point is drugs are avaible and they are of unknown purity or even content. With a legal supply, it would be much easier to offer help to users (you could give people monthly contigents how much they may buy), it would be of known purity and if the Prohibition of any lesson, many users would shift to less intrusive modes of consumption because the stuff would be cheaper and pure and at least drug-related crime would go back. Morris, your argument is a fallacy - if you translate it, it means that we shouldn't improve anything because nothing will remove all problems, not even in its own scope. I look at this coldly and rationally, even though I'm myself not shy at all in that regard. I'm probably even quite sure that I have more experience than 95% of users.

On guns, I'm starting to lean to the libertarian side; my European bring-up still makes me recoil though because I really like how it's handled here, only ever seeing guns on cops.

[Tyndmyr]

Well that is not the point - not at all. The point is drugs are avaible and they are of unknown purity or even content. With a legal supply, it would be much easier to offer help to users (you could give people monthly contigents how much they may buy), it would be of known purity and if the Prohibition of any lesson, many users would shift to less intrusive modes of consumption because the stuff would be cheaper and pure and at least drug-related crime would go back. Morris, your argument is a fallacy - if you translate it, it means that we shouldn't improve anything because nothing will remove all problems, not even in its own scope. I look at this coldly and rationally, even though I'm myself not shy at all in that regard. I'm probably even quite sure that I have more experience than 95% of users.

On guns, I'm starting to lean to the libertarian side; my European bring-up still makes me recoil though because I really like how it's handled here, only ever seeing guns on cops.

Fully agree on the drugs. But the "unenforceable" merely is meant to indicate that despite pretty widespread bans and harsh enforcement...you can get drugs basically anywhere in the US. You can pass all the laws you want, but decreasing the supply further is unlikely.

As a gun-related aside, I suspect that much of the US gun culture is military related. A huge percentage of firearms are military styled or surplus(though not necessarily modern), and you've got a lot of respect for the military, and former military people(myself included) frequently opt to shoot a firearm similar to their service gun. You've got lots of people who say, post ww2, came back, and owned basically the same gun here. As you say, what you're familiar with will definitely impact your preferences.

[morriswalters]

Well that is not the point - not at all. The point is drugs are avaible and they are of unknown purity or even content. With a legal supply, it would be much easier to offer help to users (you could give people monthly contigents how much they may buy), it would be of known purity and if the Prohibition of any lesson, many users would shift to less intrusive modes of consumption because the stuff would be cheaper and pure and at least drug-related crime would go back. Morris, your argument is a fallacy - if you translate it, it means that we shouldn't improve anything because nothing will remove all problems, not even in its own scope. I look at this coldly and rationally, even though I'm myself not shy at all in that regard. I'm probably even quite sure that I have more experience than 95% of users.

Rationing? I just answered this somewhere else. What are you willing to give up to gain that solution? I believe in improving a lot of things. But how many deaths are you prepared to suffer for that freedom. Say for instance that cocaine was legal. Would you or anyone in their right mind hire a user? So we have users with no funds. So how do they obtain their drugs? The same thing for the opiates or even reefer. It's not even as simple as just jailing people who deal since most people that use drugs deal. Say you overcome those barriers. You are still left with a public safety issue. It's bad enough as is, and you would be in the position of checking to make sure people were drug free while at work. Now as I said elsewhere, I'm perfectly willing to supply free drugs and needles and places to use. It will be a self limiting issue.

[Tyndmyr]

Rationing? I just answered this somewhere else. What are you willing to give up to gain that solution? I believe in improving a lot of things. But how many deaths are you prepared to suffer for that freedom. Say for instance that cocaine was legal. Would you or anyone in their right mind hire a user? So we have users with no funds. So how do they obtain their drugs? The same thing for the opiates or even reefer. It's not even as simple as just jailing people who deal since most people that use drugs deal. Say you overcome those barriers. You are still left with a public safety issue. It's bad enough as is, and you would be in the position of checking to make sure people were drug free while at work. Now as I said elsewhere, I'm perfectly willing to supply free drugs and needles and places to use. It will be a self limiting issue.

We already have drug users with no funds who turn to crime to obtain drugs. You also have random drug testing for employment already. This would not be a new development.

[Thesh]

So, there is a bill in California that is supposed to close a "loophole" in the current law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/0 ... ostpopular

With Senate Bill 249, Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) is trying to close a loophole in one of the California gun control laws, which already includes some of the toughest restrictions in the nation.

It is currently illegal in California for manufacturers to sell certain guns with detachable magazines, or the storage areas that allow for repeat firing. To get around the law, manufacturers have been selling guns with tools, or conversion kits, that allow one to reload in seconds. Yee's bill seeks to ban such devices, including “bullet buttons” and "mag magnets."

“While most gun owners are law-abiding, it is a fact that such weapons are more likely to be used to kill an innocent person than used in self-defense," Yee said in a press release. "One only needs to look at England, Japan, and other nations with strict gun access to see that these types of gun control laws are effective in preventing gun-related homicides.”

The "loophole'" that manufacturers are using to "get around the law" is this:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/ ... pter39.pdf

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a)
"detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.

This is why I hate California. These firearms are not a problem, and no matter how complicated your device to prevent people from changing the magazine is, these devices can be removed from the gun entirely, with minimal effort. Also, my California-legal rifle accepts any AR-15 magazine, detachable without a special tool because I have a traditional rifle stock instead of a pistol grip.

I think this highlights why I am against gun control: anything that would have an effect is too restrictive, and can't pass. Everything we pass usually ends up being useless and restrictive only to enthusiasts.

[EdgarJPublius]

"One only needs to look at England... to see that these types of gun control laws are effective in preventing gun-related homicides.”

Uh-huh.

[krogoth]

I always wonder why people are unwilling to give up their rights to protect others. I drink quite a bit, but would be willing to give it up it it could prevent the alcohol abuse going on these days. It's unfortunate that prohibition doesn't work. Apparently outside of the police in places like japan it would be quite uncommon to find anyone with firearms.*heads off to google...* [cite]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country[/cite] obviously it would be nice to be able to brake it down a bit, but still very interesting.

[Thesh]

I always wonder why people are unwilling to give up their rights to protect others. I drink quite a bit, but would be willing to give it up it it could prevent the alcohol abuse going on these days. It's unfortunate that prohibition doesn't work. Apparently outside of the police in places like japan it would be quite uncommon to find anyone with firearms.*heads off to google...* [cite]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country[/cite] obviously it would be nice to be able to brake it down a bit, but still very interesting.

For me, it's because I find that giving up rights usually has either no effect or makes things work, e.g. prohibition of alcohol.

On a side note, I'm annoyed that people outside of these forums only seem to use the "if everyone had a gun..." or "because the constitution says so, you stupid liberal" arguments when debating gun control.

[EdgarJPublius]

I always wonder why people are unwilling to give up their rights to protect others.

Probably because giving up rights doesn't actually ever protect anyone.

[krogoth]

As I said, prohibition doesn't work. Therefor what do we need to do to reduce the dependency on guns? Why do Americans feel so entitled to have so many guns when other countries citizens don't? What correlation is there between owning guns and personal safety? Here in Australia we need to keep guns and ammo locked in separate locked box's if I recall correctly. Owning a gun would offer little to no personal safety in this instance.

I can't think of any one reason reason for why people would end up using them so recklessly, except for lack of personal accountability- this in causing people to need to use guns, and then in using them.

EdgarJPublius: If i give up my right to one of my kidneys I can save someone, If I give up my right to some of my hard earnt money I can save the hungry.

[Thesh]

As I said, prohibition doesn't work. Therefor what do we need to do to reduce the dependency on guns? Why do Americans feel so entitled to have so many guns when other countries citizens don't? What correlation is there between owning guns and personal safety? Here in Australia we need to keep guns and ammo locked in separate locked box's if I recall correctly. Owning a gun would offer little to no personal safety in this instance.

That's _NOT_ the problem. The problem is the rest of American society. In the US we have this "with us or against us" attitude. We demonize those who disagree with us, breeding this atmosphere of hated. In politics, we pretend like everything we support will make everything better while if our opponents are elected it will be the end of the world. We allow education to put people in debt, we treat not taking vacation as a matter of national pride.

In the end, we end up with a stressed out society, and people bullying and ridiculing those with different beliefs. It is guaranteed to end badly (in this case, people snap). On top of all of that, we have this American dream where the ultimate goal of the individual needs to be wealth, and fuck all else. Individualism at the sacrifice of others, combined with a history of persecution of those who aren't white, and willfully ignoring the problems in Latin America has created a shitty situation.

A change in culture, catalyzed by a reduction in poverty and an economic boom in Latin America is what is necessary to solve the violence in America, and it is something that we can accomplish if we accept that it isn't going to happen overnight. But it won't happen, because people want quick fixes, not long term solutions.

[pizzazz]

You really need to up the reading comprehension here. Yes, I just named the driving forces behind historic gangs. Yes, I'm demonstrating that gang violence predates both guns and drugs.

The war on drugs didn't invent gangs, they'd otherwise exist and always have. If it wasn't drugs it would (still) be something else. As history shows, they change and adapt to supply whatever the demand calls for. Production cartels may be different story, as those exist how and where they are specifically because that's where the drugs can be produced.

Yes, alcohol and gambling provided reasons for gang violence outside of drugs. You might notice that these are almost exactly like drugs--nothing inherently wrong with any of them, but banned anyway and ended up becoming the product of choice for violent gangs. So, in fact, you are just giving more examples of the same basic idea I mentioned.