On February 20 2012 07:12 Kerwin wrote: Let's see how well my ideas go...
a.) No one should be able to own a gun without having been properly trained for it. Too often (at least in my neck of the woods) I hear about people being shot when some nut with a gun who doesn't know how to use it freaks out. (Last year a kid got shot toilet papering a house because some idiot thought it was a robber. This guy shot a weapon without knowing what he was shooting at. It's a basic rule of owning a gun is that you don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...
b.) Handguns should always have a waiting period before purchasing because handguns are almost exclusively used to shoot at other people.
Also, I'll just throw this in here... The 2nd ammendment has been bastardized from it's original sentiment. The founding fathers weren't envisioning a future where every citizen would be packing, and they weren't suggesting that people needed firearms to protect themselves individually. They were trying to make sure that during wartime, a militia would be more easily rounded up. The exact text from the constitution says,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The first half of that sentence is a qualifying statement, letting us know that the purpose of people having the right to bear arms is because we need a militia to protect us. In my opinion a militia is no longer necessary with us having one of the largest standing armies in the world.
Take that for what you will, I've never fired a gun, and don't plan on doing it. There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada)
Correlation does not equal causation. Just look at North Dakota (US state with low crime) compared to Manitoba (Canadian province with high crime). Look at Mexico. Look at the hundreds of extremely safe US countries with extremely high gun ownership. Look at the US cities with strict gun control and high crime. Look at Australia before and after their effective gun ban.
I don't think I was implying that gun laws make the crime rate go down... Gun nuts seem to believe that crime would go up if citizens don't have guns, which is dumb.
"There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada) " It sounds like that is exactly what you are saying.
And it is not dumb to suggest that gun control can cause crime to go up. Gun control takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while leaving them in the hands of criminals. That is just a recipe for more crime and it played out in Australia.
Maybe I should have left out my own 2 cents at the end... but I don't think there's a reasonable argument for putting guns in the hands of people not trained to use them. Someone who think that owning a gun that they don't know how to use will protect them is taking a pretty big chance.
I'm surpised people are even debating this. (Beyond the actual discussion of whether or not anyone should be allowed to carry guns.) Smoking a joint of marijuana doesn't mean you're any more likely to kill someone then if you didn't. Violent offenders on the other hand, have shown they are dangerous people, and thus should not be given items that empower their dangerous actions. If they want to go hunt or something, they should buy a bow and use it It's far more challenging/fun anyways.
On February 20 2012 07:10 BluePanther wrote: And on the point of school massacres... just imagine if I was in one of those classrooms when a gunman strode in with an auto and opened fire? I'd have popped him and saved dozens of lives. And people like me aren't as rare as you think, nearly 1% of the US population has formal military training.
I'm just going to call it here, as you ignore half of my arguments and don't understand the rest to a degree that we can have a reasonable discussion (not implying you're stupid or anything, I'm not clear enough I guess). And I need to do my statistics! Though I'd like to add that it's illegal to bring guns to school, that's one thing, and having guns all over the place in school would probably lead to some horrible incidents between kids. Secondly having 1% military trained is already a too low percentage, but considering how few of them again who are actually in good enough training to react fast enough and correctly (especially acting correctly) in such a situation it just becomes too rare to bother thinking about.
On February 20 2012 07:21 Suikakuju wrote: You US Guys like them guns!
Guns can be great. Have you ever seen Top Shot? That's a good show. Did you know you can be a grandmaster pistol shooter? They have competitive sports just like we do.
On February 20 2012 07:10 BluePanther wrote: And on the point of school massacres... just imagine if I was in one of those classrooms when a gunman strode in with an auto and opened fire? I'd have popped him and saved dozens of lives. And people like me aren't as rare as you think, nearly 1% of the US population has formal military training.
I'm just going to call it here, as you ignore half of my arguments and don't understand the rest to a degree that we can have a reasonable discussion. And I need to do my statistics! Though I'd like to add that it's illegal to bring guns to school, that's one thing, and having guns all over the place in school would probably lead to some horrible incidents between kids. Secondly having 1% military trained is already a too low percentage, but considering how few of them again who are actually in good enough training to react fast enough and correctly (especially acting correctly) in such a situation it just becomes too rare to bother thinking about.
No one is saying kids should be allowed to bring guns to high school. Teachers and security guards with the CCW permits is another thing. In order to receive a CCW permit you need to prove that you are safe and competent with pistols and you don't need military training in order to step up in a terrible situation and save people's lives.
We Canadians own more guns per capita, or so I've read (licensed guns). I feel anybody should be allowed to own guns except violent criminals who've been proven to be likely repeat offenders (case by case). People act like massive waves of crime are caused by legal gun ownership, and then there are a bunch of people who think that only the govt. should be allowed to carry guns (because they're above the rest of us humans somehow? Give me a break. This isn't a monarchy. Thanks, but we don't have that much respect for or trust in our government to let them be the ones with all the weapons). I don't care if some douchebag goes apeshit and kills 50 people every day with a legal firearm. My opinion on the matter won't change, since I've grown up around responsible people who own guns my whole life, and I don't think of them as any more dangerous than a steak knife.
I don't think immediately they should be able to just go out and buy a gun. I think 10 or 15 years probationary period you should be able to apply to get that right back, but only if you have no other crimes and haven't committed multiple felonies.
I think the current laws are fine, but if someone has made a mistake in the past and are living well and actually rehabilitated and proven they can be a trusted citizen after 10 years I'm ok with it.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
110% agree with you.
Sure is working out with Australia and it's 0 crime rate, eh? Or is all of Australia's crime caused by the few bolt-actions and shotguns you guys are still allowed to have?
The example I was thinking of was a black person in some suburb previously convicted of drug dealing, (since I watched The Wire) who can't access guns anymore and is afterwards immediately targeted by hoodlums for robbery and such. If he defends himself by using an illegal gun, he'll find himself back in prison and if not, his life and property are in danger. I mean, if they are too 'trigger-happy'(hah) with taking gun-rights away, you know that eventually some local police department will make it their mission to convict as many people as possible just to have them "in the system" and essentially under guardianship.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
I facepalm when I read things like this, because the number of ways I've thought of killing people other than guns in the time this takes to type this pretty much destroys the theory that a gun-free world is somehow a peaceful world. Did this person forget the harsh reality of conflicts between people being resolved violently ends with a beating or a blade more often than with a bullet? Do you seriously believe this dribble? For the world to be peaceful you have to take all the poverty, and eliminate it, you have to think of non-violent resolutions to conflicts.
Being fucking delusional and removing types of weapons from the plethora of choices we have already will not do shit to make the world a peaceful place. Please, don't believe the world to be such a simple place, and give people with brains a little more credit to think of ways to kill people.
On February 20 2012 01:11 Chanuk wrote: I completely agree with zeru, nobody besides certain government bodys should be allowed to be in the possession of firearms.
I don't know if anyone really knows this but the reason the "right to bear arms" is a part of the constitution of the United States is strictly for the people to have an option to rise up and revolt against any government body which is acting non-democratically(somewhat to what you'd see in 1939 with hitler).
The right to bear arms isn't about running around touting "fuck yeah" and shooting up the place Wild West style, it's about safety and protection. I believe any EX-CON with a violent criminal record (or a case related to violent crime) should have to go on a 5 year probation where (for one have to pay for the entire session length) and have to be evaluated if they can own guns.
I think It is insane to think that only the government should hold/carry guns... I'm all for gun control, but I'm not fine with the concept of allowing any country (United States or other) to no allow citizens to have the ability to rise against suppression...
On February 20 2012 04:14 LastK wrote: Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right?
It is called game theory or the prisoner's dilemma . Look it up. It basically is what happened during the cold war
No Nuke Has Nuke Has Nuke [ a ] [ b ]
No Nuke [ c ] [ d ]
Suppose the vertical axis is Country Y and the Horizontal axis is Country X and both countries' leaders are clear minded logical thinkers and not crazies then in case:
a: Both countries are afraid of using nukes because they know that they will be retaliated upon so no one fires.
b: Country Y has the advantage and in case war breaks out and casualties keep climbing and no end to the war car be sighted then it uses its nukes to put an end to the war and stops casualties from its side. Country Y can be the oppressor since Country X is in disadvantage.
c: Both countries do not own nukes and therefor are somewhat equals but if is aggression between both nations then it will be a race to who stockpiles nukes first and will either go to case a, b or d.
d: Same as in b but the other way around.
All in all, case d is the ideal world where both countries want peace and freedom and respect each other and there is no greed. Most likely not possible because both countries would have different cultures and they think differently but it does not mean that it could not be achieved. The most optimal (not ideal but optimal, best option) is case a. Although there might be differences in point of view both countries fear death and therefor will not fire their nukes. Replace X and Y with anything that you want e.g athletes and performance enhancers, convicted prisoners ratting out on each other, in this forum topic who should own guns, etc.
Following this logic, every nation SHOULD possess nukes, but since the US was the first to have them and they have the most taking ex-USSR out of the equation, it acts as the world police (or bullies in the eyes of some) and they dictate the terms of peace. Anyone not respecting the US and that possibly own nukes are considered terrorist states by some american media and policy makers. It is all about who has power and can maintain it. In a just world everyone should be accountable and equals meaning if one should decide to be a bully all the others can fight back.
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society.
110% agree with you.
Sure is working out with Australia and it's 0 crime rate, eh? Or is all of Australia's crime caused by the few bolt-actions and shotguns you guys are still allowed to have?
When was the last time there was a school shooting or mass murder in Australia and the last time there was one in the States?
On February 20 2012 01:11 Chanuk wrote: I completely agree with zeru, nobody besides certain government bodys should be allowed to be in the possession of firearms.
I don't know if anyone really knows this but the reason the "right to bear arms" is a part of the constitution of the United States is strictly for the people to have an option to rise up and revolt against any government body which is acting non-democratically(somewhat to what you'd see in 1939 with hitler).
The right to bear arms isn't about running around touting "fuck yeah" and shooting up the place Wild West style, it's about safety and protection. I believe any EX-CON with a violent criminal record (or a case related to violent crime) should have to go on a 5 year probation where (for one have to pay for the entire session length) and have to be evaluated if they can own guns.
I think It is insane to think that only the government should hold/carry guns... I'm all for gun control, but I'm not fine with the concept of allowing any country (United States or other) to no allow citizens to have the ability to rise against suppression...
That's my stance.
I hope nobody seriously thinks having guns will let the population put a stop to a fascist authoritarian government. There is already such an incredible power disparity between the two that guns will be nigh useless. What are you going to do against the police's ability to monitor everything you do, to have targeted raids including weaponry and protection more advanced than handguns, to control the media etc? Or just to change the laws to prevent 'criminals' (i.e. rebels or anarchists) from having guns?
EPT
