jovack22 said:
Trying to make it sound like a dissertation doesn't make your point more accurate.
1. Reducing firearms would reduce risk to the general public. How can you argue on the contrary.
The number of deaths and injuries as a result of legal use of firearms is a tiny fraction of the percentage of the total. Given that there does not exist a viable mechanism to actually control the illegal arms trade in a nation with thousands of miles of insecure borders and huge trade volume, you advocate reducing the weapons in legal use. Thus, you advocate reducing the chance of death by
negligent use of firearms.
Yes, it is a reduction. There isn't any denying that. But my point is that this reduction would have such a small impact that one is forced to question if there might be a better way to save people. I mean, that is your goal right? Reduce human misery? Do you think the effort of collecting a
billion firearms to be trivial, or do you imagine it is a monumental undertaking that would cost
billions of dollars across many years to complete?
What I'm arguing is that if you want to reduce human misery, there are
far more efficient ways to achieve that end than targeting legal firearm ownership.
jovack22 said:
It's like saying putting more hot sauce in your soup wouldn't make it hotter.
Actually, if the soup is sufficiently high on the scoville scale, there exist plenty of hot sauces that would actually result in a reduction in heat.
jovack22 said:
The same argument goes for people saying guns are there to defend themselves. As if having the gun would make your situation safer... often, carrying a weapon escalates issues.
It can, certainly. But then what you are really asking is if you think people are safer when they have no means to defend themselves. I cannot offer you any certain answer to the question of if a citizen facing a violent threat is safer if they do not escalate or not because that varies on factors neither of us can predict.
jovack22 said:
2. You are saying peoples' lives are not worth the money/effort... there's just so much that is fundamentally wrong with that statement.
I said nothing of the sort. I conjectured that there are problems that, if confronted with the same effort that full disarmament would require, would result in a more significant reduction in human misery.
jovack22 said:
3. If something is hard to accomplish, it is not even worth trying?
Sure, something is worth trying if you feel the end justifies the means. I have a hard time thinking saving a tiny handful of people at such a huge cost is a useful way to expend an effort when there are other pressing issues that, if effectively combated, could save so many more.
jovack22 said:
There are many worthwhile causes. Coming to a sensible solution on firearms (just look at any of the world's leading nations) is definitely a worthwhile cause.
Full disarmament is not a sensible solution - you save so little in exchange for what you pay. Controlling the illicit arms market is, as it currently stands,
impossible.
Simply put, I don't think your cause, as stated, is worthwhile precisely because there are other problems that could be solved. And, hell, with some of those problems, you might just reduce violent crime to boot!
jovack22 said:
You're brainwashed by NRA rhetoric...
An interesting accusation but a rhetorical fallacy to say the least. As such, there is no need to confront such a comment save to say that, were I brainwashed, I'd probably not point out legal means of changing things, basis of consensus, or acknowledge the existence of negligent firearm use; instead, I'd say that video games caused gun violence and advocate laws to restrict
that.
jovack22 said:
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on the subject since there will be no consensus. You believe that owning automatic weapons, large magazine clips, flashbang grenades, etc is all perfectly normal and a fundamental right.
I never said anything implicit or explicit that supports this idea, actually. You're projecting in this case.
I will, however, point out a variety of things. First, consider just what a large magazine size accomplishes. In brief, it gives someone
more time between needing to reload. Thus, when it comes right down to it, the assumption is that cutting down on magazine size would reduce average rate of fire and, hopefully, reduce casualties in the event of a mass shooting scenario.
First, a short video. Here is some guy reloading an AR:
Notice that it took just over a second to accomplish this task. That isn't particularly fast by any stretch and is more or less representative of what
anyone could do if they spent a few hours practicing. If we consider the super large capacity magazine, say 90 rounds, that means someone using the relatively tiny 30 round magazine loses perhaps three seconds of shooting time to fire the same number of shots or, a reduction of between 1 and 3 aimed shots (the reduction being based on range of target and experience of shooter). Cutting magazine capacity by 66 percent from what is already easily available thus results in a drop in rate of fire of less than 5%.
In order for you to achieve the presumed goal of cutting down on number of shots fired in a scenario involving a heavily armed lunatic by any significant amount, you'd need to reduce magazine size to something absurd. At 10 rounds, the person has lost between 3 and 9 shots for example.
But, it must be said that while I don't see there to be any particular
use for magazines that large (largely due to reliability problems as well as the simple fact that the weapon is not designed to handle long periods of fire at extremely high cadence as well as a relative lack of any plausible scenario wherein that tiny advantage in firepower would be useful) I simultaneously don't see a good reason to
restrict the sales of such devices. Limiting rate of fire is not something that can be so readily achieved using current firearms as they were designed from the ground up to be
easily and
quickly reloaded.
Sure, there have been efforts to solve this exact problem. California for example requires all such weapons have a system such that some sort of tool is required to remove the magazine - a noble effort. But given that these mechanisms can be quickly bypassed (in many cases, with nothing more than a piece of tape and a random small object), even these fail. I don't support the effort precisely because the effort does so little to solve the problem it seeks to correct.
jovack22 said:
The military-industrial complex has spiralled out of control since ww2... the nra is just there to keep it churning.
The military industrial complex refers to the system by which a handful of companies are responsible for the production of arms meant for military use. The US Government spends tens of billions annually on weapon systems and their upkeep. The NRA has precisely
zero impact on this issue.
What you refer to is the private ownership of firearms - a completely separate concept and, unfortunately, one without a menacing moniker attached. That market is, of course, protected by the NRA and their doing so is hardly seedy - that's the precise activity that organization exists for. That's why people join them. That's why people give them money.
jovack22 said:
Nothing will get done, and in 20, 10, 5, years from now another senseless massacre will occur.
And we spent tens of billions combating hunger, disease and poverty, we could save
millions. If you want to fight tragedy, pick a fight where you can make a real impact. Sure, fighting poverty might not be glamorous but it would at the very least help mitigate the problem of violent crime.
jovack22 said:
I just wonder if your family was murdered would you be inclined to change your viewpoint.
No, because my family won't be murdered in a senseless massacre. Or at least, they're no more likely to be massacred than I am to be struck by lightning while being simultaneously
eaten by a shark - and that problem never actually worries me.
