|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Canada11266 Posts
On December 15 2012 08:43 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder. This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive. Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was? Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Why ban assault rifles if handguns are used in the commission of a gun-related crime almost all of the time? Assault weapons, off the cuff, are used 0.5-1% in gun crimes. It is for the "shock" value of events like today, I'm guessing. I do not think removing nearly 300 million guns off 99.99% law abiding American citizens would be the answer.
Why not handguns? Because this argument always ends up centering on American gun control laws. I find it doubtful that an argument around banning handguns at this point in time would gain much traction. If it was just an argument about Canadian law with only Canadians, I would argue to keep long guns and restrict or ban handguns and most any automatic weapon.
But this argument is always so polarized so I usually try to limit the scope of my argument.
|
On December 15 2012 08:49 flexgd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:40 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:38 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:34 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:28 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:25 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." read again its right there I said you did not ADDRESS it. You quoted it but only addressed/acknowledged the first part, phrasing your question with only regard to the part about militias. obviously i did i was asking if the right to keep and bear arms to secure the free state via militias was still necessary You see what you did right there? You used the right to keep and bear arms clause as a requisite of the first part of the amendment. You're twisting the entire amendment without even knowing where the wording of that amendment even came from. Hint: Commentaries on the Laws of England "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So being the law-abiding and liberty-loving citizen you are you obviously bought your gun to defend yourself as that is the only legal reason to possess one. basically your own supreme court is giving you the freedom to defend yourself with a gun because the legislation itself cannot protect you otherwise from the many guns in your country. pathetic What's more pathetic is that first paragraph you quoted completely thwarts your first attempt at trying to phrase the second amendment as for militias only. And I didn't realize they said self-defense was the only purpose of firearms. I guess I need to brush up on my reading skills. Or do you? no i dont need to. and yes you do. if there is another lawful purpose under which u bought the gun please tell me (hint : you cant) therefor all i can say is: i won the argument as i am the only one that stated facts so all thats left to say is umad bro?and never look at this thread again to have the last word. your country is doomed bro. you should leave the sinking ship while u still can...wouldnt want to live in an anarchy with so many guns
"umad bro?" LOL. That was good.
No one is getting mad here, just a good debate.
|
This is not a day to leak your opinions out of your mouths, regardless of which side you're on. Mourn for the dead on this day. And to the few comments above me, I will hope for you to step on many legos in the coming weeks.
|
On December 15 2012 08:42 polishedturd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:+ Show Spoiler +However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. It's not exactly easy for a private citizen to own an automatic weapon in the states. The act of getting a Class III license is not all that prohibitive for a responsible citizen. See below: Show nested quote +1. Be a US Citizen at least 21 years old
2. Be of sane mind
3. Not an abuser of drugs or alcohol
4. Have never been convicted of a felony
5. Pay a $200.00 Federal Transfer Tax on each weapon purchased. (This is a one-time tax, not a yearly tax)
6. Fill out BATF Form 4 and submit to ATF. This involves getting a Signature of the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" in your area signifying that he has no knowledge that you will use your weapon for anything other that lawful purposes
7. Have your fingerprints/photographs taken and submitted to BATF with the above application. The major barrier to entry, however, is the cost of the firearm itself, which are in the tens of thousands of dollars. This in practice makes legally purchased automatic weapons extremely rare in active shooter type scenarios. Also, the pseudo-classification of "assault-weapon" is completely inane. Don't use it if you want to have an actual discussion of this issue. If you want to ban rifles, that's fine, it's your personal belief. But let me tell you right now, there is very little variance in the capabilities of something like a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle and a big black scary AR-15. The statement of wanting to ban just "assault-weapons" is an ignorant cop-out that generally does nothing but restrict the rights of responsible citizens.
Wow.
We have to go through a stricter procedure to get any kind of weapon (including bb guns, trophy guns and sport guns)
Sure, don't have to pay that much, but the mental and also physical check-up is stricter.
And ofc you can't have any automatic weapon or anything that looks like an automatic weapon.
|
Here's my take...
It won't work to outlaw guns in the United States because the cat is already out of the bag. In places where it's always been illegal or has been for decades it works but there becomes an imbalance of power between government and citizen. This is what the 2nd amendment to the US constitution is mostly concerned with. However, there are ways I think we can sensibly regulate gun ownership without walking all over the constitution. It is impossible for citizenry to retain a balance of power anymore against government so regulation or not the purpose of the 2nd amendment is nearly mute at this point anyway. Like it or not the problem exists and a outlawing guns is not going to work just like total proliferation won't work. There is a sensible solution to regulation I think that can help.
1) Require a psych evaluation for anyone attempting to purchase a gun.
Currently we just do a background check and if someone isn't listed as crazy or a criminal we assume they're fine. An actual psych evaluation for the purpose of authorizing the purchase of a weapon would help.
2) Require a proper training class for use, safety, storage, maintenance, and knowledge of local and federal gun laws prior to ability to purchase any kind of firearm. Current laws vary by state but in many cases no formal training is required at all.
3) Make it illegal to knowingly loan a weapon to anyone who has not also been fully authorized to own/shoot a gun via the first two rules.
4) Make it illegal to store a loaded weapon in your home in a location freely accessible by children or unlicensed adults. In other words a gun should be stored in a locked cabinet or safe
5) The exception to unlicensed gun use is within the premises of a gun range under proper supervision of a licensed instructor or gun owner.
This does not solve the problem by any means due to the fact that several if not most of these events were carried out by individuals that were not even the owners of the weapons but obtained access to them from a friend or relative, but it would help.
We likely won't ever be able to fully ban Guns in the United States but there are sensible ways of screening possible that may help reduce the problem. Criminals will always use guns because it's always been illegal for them to have guns. Removing guns from the population in affect only removes them from the lawful creating an even worse imbalance of power. Lets be sensible about this on both sides.
|
In response to the OP, I'll be looking into getting myself a pistol for defense.
|
On December 15 2012 08:49 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder. This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive. Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was? Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The funny thing is, only the most insane people really don't believe in gun control at all. http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htmI personally can't call any of those anything but a good start. Tack on some mandatory training before you can legally keep a firearm outside of a gun safe or get a CHL, and then properly enforce the restrictions on gun sales, and it wouldn't be too bad. But, unfortunately, most people who want to increase regulation want to throw in arbitrary restrictions that don't really make a difference. Magazine capacity isn't the problem, the problem is that it's too easy to make a gun fall off the books.
Reasonable restrictions such as those you listed were not the issues being discussed in this thread. What was being discussed was the implementation of a gun ban. I agree completely that there needs to be reasonable limitations on who and who cannot own guns, and in many places throughout the country this type of policy is already the case.
|
While I agree that lax gun control laws would potentially lead to an increase in crimes committed with firearms, I do not think that the situation in U.S can be wholly explained by that. I think it's the culture that comes into play here. Guns and military (due to Cold War, 2nd World War and all the other wars that happened after, not to mention the American Civil War) seem to hold a huge place in US life (I am simply ASSUMING, as I am not an American citizen nor ever lived there, but my father has many friends living in US and they seem to own many guns)
Yet I do not think one can generalize this to every state of the U.S. As in every country there seem to be regions where specific behaviours are much more prevalent. Not sure Connecticut is one of them, and I don't think regular people who like guns once in a while go on a killing spree, slaughtering many innocents. At the most I think one can say that it would make it much easier for a criminal-minded person to obtain guns legally, and I don't think anyone sane could deny this.
Again as I said, just correct me if I'm wrong.
|
On December 15 2012 08:49 flexgd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:40 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:38 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:34 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:28 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:25 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." read again its right there I said you did not ADDRESS it. You quoted it but only addressed/acknowledged the first part, phrasing your question with only regard to the part about militias. obviously i did i was asking if the right to keep and bear arms to secure the free state via militias was still necessary You see what you did right there? You used the right to keep and bear arms clause as a requisite of the first part of the amendment. You're twisting the entire amendment without even knowing where the wording of that amendment even came from. Hint: Commentaries on the Laws of England "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So being the law-abiding and liberty-loving citizen you are you obviously bought your gun to defend yourself as that is the only legal reason to possess one. basically your own supreme court is giving you the freedom to defend yourself with a gun because the legislation itself cannot protect you otherwise from the many guns in your country. pathetic What's more pathetic is that first paragraph you quoted completely thwarts your first attempt at trying to phrase the second amendment as for militias only. And I didn't realize they said self-defense was the only purpose of firearms. I guess I need to brush up on my reading skills. Or do you? no i dont need to. and yes you do. if there is another lawful purpose under which u bought the gun please tell me (hint : you cant) therefor all i can say is: i won the argument as i am the only one that stated facts so all thats left to say is umad bro? and never look at this thread again to have the last word. your country is doomed bro. you should leave the sinking ship while u still can...wouldnt want to live in an anarchy with so many guns
Have you ever been to the US? If not, then leave your uneducated guesses at the door. You have proven to me you opinion is not based on actual facts.
|
And, speaking to this debate, as a gun owner, I still think the last motherfuckers responsible Americans should want owning a gun are the gun lobbyists.
Those dudes are complete fucking batshit whackjobs from hell.
|
On December 15 2012 08:52 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:43 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder. This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive. Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was? Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Why ban assault rifles if handguns are used in the commission of a gun-related crime almost all of the time? Assault weapons, off the cuff, are used 0.5-1% in gun crimes. It is for the "shock" value of events like today, I'm guessing. I do not think removing nearly 300 million guns off 99.99% law abiding American citizens would be the answer. Why not handguns? Because this argument always ends up centering on American gun control laws. I find it doubtful that an argument around banning handguns at this point in time would gain much traction. If it was just an argument about Canadian law with only Canadians, I would argue to keep long guns and restrict or ban handguns and most any automatic weapon. But this argument is always so polarized so I usually try to limit the scope of my argument.
I see what you're saying, I'm just having trouble finding a reason to go after "Assault weapons" when the main problem is handguns. I don't see it serving a purpose. People use rifles to hunt, for sport, target shooting. So if you want to ban assault rifles, there really is no line between an "assault" rifle and a "sport" rifle. State legislatures have tried in the past but there's just no way to do it without creating loopholes. You'd have to ban all rifles.
|
On December 15 2012 08:52 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:42 polishedturd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:+ Show Spoiler +However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. It's not exactly easy for a private citizen to own an automatic weapon in the states. The act of getting a Class III license is not all that prohibitive for a responsible citizen. See below: 1. Be a US Citizen at least 21 years old
2. Be of sane mind
3. Not an abuser of drugs or alcohol
4. Have never been convicted of a felony
5. Pay a $200.00 Federal Transfer Tax on each weapon purchased. (This is a one-time tax, not a yearly tax)
6. Fill out BATF Form 4 and submit to ATF. This involves getting a Signature of the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" in your area signifying that he has no knowledge that you will use your weapon for anything other that lawful purposes
7. Have your fingerprints/photographs taken and submitted to BATF with the above application. The major barrier to entry, however, is the cost of the firearm itself, which are in the tens of thousands of dollars. This in practice makes legally purchased automatic weapons extremely rare in active shooter type scenarios. Also, the pseudo-classification of "assault-weapon" is completely inane. Don't use it if you want to have an actual discussion of this issue. If you want to ban rifles, that's fine, it's your personal belief. But let me tell you right now, there is very little variance in the capabilities of something like a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle and a big black scary AR-15. The statement of wanting to ban just "assault-weapons" is an ignorant cop-out that generally does nothing but restrict the rights of responsible citizens. Wow. We have to go through a stricter procedure to get any kind of weapon (including bb guns, trophy guns and sport guns) Sure, don't have to pay that much, but the mental and also physical check-up is stricter. And ofc you can't have any automatic weapon or anything that looks like an automatic weapon.
But is that right? I don't think so.
|
The most ridiculous and scary thing is that nutjobs are able to get a firearm with relative ease in America. I think it is atrocious that after all these shootings, America has yet to implement stricter rules to obtain firearms.
There's also the problem that the distribution of firearms can't be as easily regulated than other countries - so even if you're rejected from having a firearm in America, you can quite easily obtain one through back handed methods. Of course, this happens in other countries too, however, the main point is that the risk of getting caught is much lower - some owner of a gun shop can lead you to the inside, give you a gun and you can leave like it was perfectly fine for you to own that gun (even if the police happen to be outside as you leave).
My general opinion is that possession of guns should be banned in the US, however, I do know that is unrealistic to say the least. I live in the UK and I don't feel I'm putting myself in a very risky position in not having a gun, in fact, I much prefer to get mugged knowing the thief is carrying a knife and not a gun. Even if I do have a gun, I do not believe I'm putting my wellbeing in any less risk, in that situation, even if the thief is carrying a knife.
|
On December 15 2012 08:53 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:49 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder. This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive. Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was? Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The funny thing is, only the most insane people really don't believe in gun control at all. http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htmI personally can't call any of those anything but a good start. Tack on some mandatory training before you can legally keep a firearm outside of a gun safe or get a CHL, and then properly enforce the restrictions on gun sales, and it wouldn't be too bad. But, unfortunately, most people who want to increase regulation want to throw in arbitrary restrictions that don't really make a difference. Magazine capacity isn't the problem, the problem is that it's too easy to make a gun fall off the books. Reasonable restrictions such as those you listed were not the issues being discussed in this thread. What was being discussed was the implementation of a gun ban. I agree completely that there needs to be reasonable limitations on who and who cannot own guns, and in many places throughout the country this type of policy is already the case.
Ah, but see, it's utterly central to the debate of whether people should be able to own guns. If the oversight and political discussion surrounding it weren't the bastard offspring of an unholy union between ignorance and lunacy, we'd probably be in a situation where less people gave a shit about guns being owned.
|
On December 15 2012 08:49 flexgd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:40 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:38 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:34 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:28 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:25 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." read again its right there I said you did not ADDRESS it. You quoted it but only addressed/acknowledged the first part, phrasing your question with only regard to the part about militias. obviously i did i was asking if the right to keep and bear arms to secure the free state via militias was still necessary You see what you did right there? You used the right to keep and bear arms clause as a requisite of the first part of the amendment. You're twisting the entire amendment without even knowing where the wording of that amendment even came from. Hint: Commentaries on the Laws of England "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So being the law-abiding and liberty-loving citizen you are you obviously bought your gun to defend yourself as that is the only legal reason to possess one. basically your own supreme court is giving you the freedom to defend yourself with a gun because the legislation itself cannot protect you otherwise from the many guns in your country. pathetic What's more pathetic is that first paragraph you quoted completely thwarts your first attempt at trying to phrase the second amendment as for militias only. And I didn't realize they said self-defense was the only purpose of firearms. I guess I need to brush up on my reading skills. Or do you? no i dont need to. and yes you do. if there is another lawful purpose under which u bought the gun please tell me (hint : you cant) therefor all i can say is: i won the argument as i am the only one that stated facts so all thats left to say is umad bro? and never look at this thread again to have the last word. your country is doomed bro. you should leave the sinking ship while u still can...wouldnt want to live in an anarchy with so many guns
like i said, i've never seen a gun ban advocate win a debate lol
its not about bias and whatnot, its just coming to the conclusion after looking at the details.
stricter gun restriction yes, complete gun ban will not work without pissing people off and giving criminals an upper hand, huge resources to deal with those criminals, and decades and decades of time.
|
On December 15 2012 08:59 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:53 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:49 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder. This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive. Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was? Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The funny thing is, only the most insane people really don't believe in gun control at all. http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htmI personally can't call any of those anything but a good start. Tack on some mandatory training before you can legally keep a firearm outside of a gun safe or get a CHL, and then properly enforce the restrictions on gun sales, and it wouldn't be too bad. But, unfortunately, most people who want to increase regulation want to throw in arbitrary restrictions that don't really make a difference. Magazine capacity isn't the problem, the problem is that it's too easy to make a gun fall off the books. Reasonable restrictions such as those you listed were not the issues being discussed in this thread. What was being discussed was the implementation of a gun ban. I agree completely that there needs to be reasonable limitations on who and who cannot own guns, and in many places throughout the country this type of policy is already the case. Ah, but see, it's utterly central to the debate of whether people should be able to own guns. If the oversight and political discussion surrounding it weren't the bastard offspring of an unholy union between ignorance and lunacy, we'd probably be in a situation where less people gave a shit about guns being owned.
There is lunacy in the debate on both sides, no one argues that. But I can't help but state that one side is still wrong on the overall policy direction (towards banning).
|
On December 15 2012 09:01 jinorazi wrote:
stricter gun restriction yes, complete gun ban will not work without pissing people off and giving criminals an upper hand, huge resources to deal with those criminals, and decades and decades of time.
I think that's the real part people forget. Banning guns completely in the USA wouldn't be some magic ticket on the Polar Express to a better country. There'd be a lot of time and effort, blood, sweat, and tears in there too.
And that's if our bureaucrats didn't manage to fuck the whole thing up. Otherwise, there'd be no improvement at all.
Banning guns to fix gun crime in the US is about as likely to work as Texas seceding would suddenly make Texas an idealized place. Which is to say, yeah fucking right.
|
On December 15 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:31 jinorazi wrote:On December 15 2012 08:30 Defacer wrote:
Is this the thread where gun enthusiasts try to defend the America's entirely lax, inconsistent and poorly enforced gun laws by comparing guns (poorly) to cars, bats, and knives?
In some cities it's illegal to have a sell or own a concealable folding knife (switch blade), but you can get a concealed carry permit. Hilarious! no, i think the sane people are advocating stricter gun laws but not being ignorant to implications of completely banning guns in USA. That's good. I wish there was some effort in the US to even try to find a middle ground, but it seems like such a hot button issue that politicians are afraid to touch. It's in the best interest of gun owners and enthusiasts to demand a better system that rewards responsible ownership. I would love a world where owning an semi-automatic assault rifle was like earning a black belt in karate or getting your welding ticket. Right now any yahoo can get a gun with little to no qualifications, training or credibility. That's not just a disservice to society as a whole, but to responsible gun owners that constantly have to defend their rights because of the idiocy of others.
I tend to think most people are for stricter accounting of guns. The problem is that opposition to guns invariably tries to limit ownership in some way (even if just by raising costs of ownership), which roundly gets defeated. I mean, you already have to register all guns.
|
On December 15 2012 08:45 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well they have banned guns in Chicago so if you want to be safe move there.I have heard there is no problem with criminals or gangs there and the murder rate is very low. LOL. Someone should google Chicago crime rates. They are by far the highest in the US and they have a total gun ban there. In fact, crime rates soared after they banned guns and has not gone done since, the citizens there are actually trying to fight the ban so they can have a gun for self defense.
It would be nice to be able to make an ironic or sarcastic comment without having to explain that it was thus.
|
On December 15 2012 09:03 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:59 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 08:53 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:49 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:
[quote]
This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive.
Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was?
Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The funny thing is, only the most insane people really don't believe in gun control at all. http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htmI personally can't call any of those anything but a good start. Tack on some mandatory training before you can legally keep a firearm outside of a gun safe or get a CHL, and then properly enforce the restrictions on gun sales, and it wouldn't be too bad. But, unfortunately, most people who want to increase regulation want to throw in arbitrary restrictions that don't really make a difference. Magazine capacity isn't the problem, the problem is that it's too easy to make a gun fall off the books. Reasonable restrictions such as those you listed were not the issues being discussed in this thread. What was being discussed was the implementation of a gun ban. I agree completely that there needs to be reasonable limitations on who and who cannot own guns, and in many places throughout the country this type of policy is already the case. Ah, but see, it's utterly central to the debate of whether people should be able to own guns. If the oversight and political discussion surrounding it weren't the bastard offspring of an unholy union between ignorance and lunacy, we'd probably be in a situation where less people gave a shit about guns being owned. There is lunacy in the debate on both sides, no one argues that. But I can't help but state that one side is still wrong on the overall policy direction (towards banning).
I actually agree with you. I just tend towards this mindset of "why can't our politics make any fucking sense?" most of the time.
Just because a ban wouldn't do what people seem to think it would, doesn't mean that the psychopaths who want to own guns to be able to rebel against the "evil gub'mint", or for some race war, or whatever other cause, have two working brain cells to rub together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
