|
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. |
On December 15 2012 13:10 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:05 Focuspants wrote:On December 15 2012 12:59 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:55 Focuspants wrote:
I think banning assault weapons is a no brainer. I understand the complexity of the situation in the US, however, allowing people easy access to such lethal killing tools is insane. You dont need an assault rifle to defend yourself. The fact of the matter is, these people that shoot up schools, movie theaters, malls, etc... strike suddenly, in places where an assault weapon of your own as a law abiding citizen is nowhere to be found. Even if for some stupid reason you did have it on you, firing an automatic weapon in a public place like this would be careless.
These weapons are not for sport, not for home defense, etc... They are extremely efficient killing tools, capable of making anyone who holds it powerful, and able to kill many people in a very short time span. Weapons like that have no place in society. I will quote my previous post regarding this: 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? Is it the pistol grip? The cycling mechanism? The stock? What exactly? 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. Also, Keep in mind the Jared Loughner used a shotgun to shoot up the theater. Is the next step banning shotguns? Most gun crime involves handguns/pistols. Do what they do here in Canada. No matter what sort of gun you own, a clip only holds 3 or 4 bullets max. Allowing someone to walk around with a weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds off in a minute or two is ludicrous. That's not good policy. What's preventing people from switching multiple mags. From customizing their own magazines? It's a fairly easy thing to do, and in your world no law-abiding citizen would have. But what about a person who wants to commit a crime or go on a shooting spree? I don't think they have much respect for the law.
I don't think this is an accurate statement of Canadian law. In Canada no one can carry any concealed firearm except for police officers. We also have very high jail sentences for discharging a firearm in the commission of an offence (four year minimum -- well, it's high by Canadian standards!)
Strangely, in Canada criminals still seem to be able to get their hands on guns.
|
On December 15 2012 13:07 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:01 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:55 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:46 magicmUnky wrote:
Yeah but if the guns are hard to obtain due to licensing and regulation, the demand will drop; it's a disincentive. If there are less guns floating around then why would home-owners want them for personal protection? If gun licenses are expensive then that's just another disincentive.
You're right that there's a huge cultural block but I think that's easier to deal with than it's been made out to be. I can only imagine that arguments like yours will win and that America will continue to be full of gun crime, on top of all the regular crime. I expect to see another psycho shooting up a school in the next year and the world will be thinking, "only in America". America is not full of gun crime. Look at this chart over a 15 year period. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.cfmDon't believe so much what you hear on the news, instead using your reasoning so we can preserve threatened principles. To give that chart some scale, you should compare it to firearm violence rates in other countries. I know it's a hard concept since I've been having to repeat it to you, but the U.S. is not Denmark, a nation of 5 million people. The cultures are completely different, the history different. It would make no sense to compare the two.
You are arguing that even though the US is statistically proven to be the first world country with the highest rate of firearm related incidents and deaths (by quite a margin) per capita, it is not actually that dangerous because of its history and its population?
|
On December 15 2012 13:10 Eishi_Ki wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:03 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 13:00 Defacer wrote:On December 15 2012 12:52 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:42 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents. The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her. Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be. O.o i have no words... Either i don`t understand just how terrible and dangerous the USA is or how freaking afraid americans are I'm not quite sure how to break this to you, but Israel is not in the USA. Thats not what i was going at... The fact that he finds that not so absurd... Assuming that arming everyone in every circumstance would make the world safer is just as ridiculous and inactionable as banning guns outright. And if I had to choose an 'extreme' to live in, I would chose the latter. I don't want to live in a world where I can see a zit-faced barista's gun tucked into his shirt as he's stirring my fucking coffee. Lmfao, I agree. Owning a firearm =/= carrying it everywhere with you. Reasonable restrictions are best, but an outright ban is just nonsense. Also, just clarifying that I said I didn't agree with being armed in every, or even most, circumstance. Just the right to own. Why is an outright ban nonsense? I hear the rest of the first world's doing a-o-k without them
Start on page 191-192 and go from there. Banning firearms in the U.S. has the opposite effect of what you might expect. It's counter-intuitive.
|
On December 15 2012 13:00 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:52 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:42 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents. The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her. Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be. O.o i have no words... Either i don`t understand just how terrible and dangerous the USA is or how freaking afraid americans are I'm not quite sure how to break this to you, but Israel is not in the USA. Thats not what i was going at... The fact that he finds that not so absurd... Assuming that arming everyone in every circumstance would make the world safer is just as ridiculous and inactionable as banning guns outright. And if I had to choose an 'extreme' to live in, I would chose the latter. I don't want to live in a world where I can see a zit-faced barista's gun tucked into his shirt as he's stirring my fucking coffee.
Why inactionable.. the world changes.. its an ignorant thought to think its impossible. I mean, any and all statistics show the rate of war, murder, rape etc is on a decline world wide. its slow and steady decline, barely perceivable in a lifetime.. but as we progress as a species we live in less and less fear of one another, which one can hope... leads to less need for the population to feel it needs to defend itself from one another. Guns aren`t going anywhere..of course not.. but people`s need to own them can SURELY decrease.
|
On December 15 2012 13:13 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:10 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 13:05 Focuspants wrote:On December 15 2012 12:59 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:55 Focuspants wrote:
I think banning assault weapons is a no brainer. I understand the complexity of the situation in the US, however, allowing people easy access to such lethal killing tools is insane. You dont need an assault rifle to defend yourself. The fact of the matter is, these people that shoot up schools, movie theaters, malls, etc... strike suddenly, in places where an assault weapon of your own as a law abiding citizen is nowhere to be found. Even if for some stupid reason you did have it on you, firing an automatic weapon in a public place like this would be careless.
These weapons are not for sport, not for home defense, etc... They are extremely efficient killing tools, capable of making anyone who holds it powerful, and able to kill many people in a very short time span. Weapons like that have no place in society. I will quote my previous post regarding this: 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? Is it the pistol grip? The cycling mechanism? The stock? What exactly? 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. Also, Keep in mind the Jared Loughner used a shotgun to shoot up the theater. Is the next step banning shotguns? Most gun crime involves handguns/pistols. Do what they do here in Canada. No matter what sort of gun you own, a clip only holds 3 or 4 bullets max. Allowing someone to walk around with a weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds off in a minute or two is ludicrous. That's not good policy. What's preventing people from switching multiple mags. From customizing their own magazines? It's a fairly easy thing to do, and in your world no law-abiding citizen would have. But what about a person who wants to commit a crime or go on a shooting spree? I don't think they have much respect for the law. I don't think this is an accurate statement of Canadian law. In Canada no one can carry any concealed firearm except for police officers. We also have very high jail sentences for discharging a firearm in the commission of an offence (four year minimum -- well, it's high by Canadian standards!) Strangely, in Canada criminals still seem to be able to get their hands on guns.
... where do you think the guns are coming from 0.o
|
On December 15 2012 13:13 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:10 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 13:05 Focuspants wrote:On December 15 2012 12:59 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:55 Focuspants wrote:
I think banning assault weapons is a no brainer. I understand the complexity of the situation in the US, however, allowing people easy access to such lethal killing tools is insane. You dont need an assault rifle to defend yourself. The fact of the matter is, these people that shoot up schools, movie theaters, malls, etc... strike suddenly, in places where an assault weapon of your own as a law abiding citizen is nowhere to be found. Even if for some stupid reason you did have it on you, firing an automatic weapon in a public place like this would be careless.
These weapons are not for sport, not for home defense, etc... They are extremely efficient killing tools, capable of making anyone who holds it powerful, and able to kill many people in a very short time span. Weapons like that have no place in society. I will quote my previous post regarding this: 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? Is it the pistol grip? The cycling mechanism? The stock? What exactly? 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. Also, Keep in mind the Jared Loughner used a shotgun to shoot up the theater. Is the next step banning shotguns? Most gun crime involves handguns/pistols. Do what they do here in Canada. No matter what sort of gun you own, a clip only holds 3 or 4 bullets max. Allowing someone to walk around with a weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds off in a minute or two is ludicrous. That's not good policy. What's preventing people from switching multiple mags. From customizing their own magazines? It's a fairly easy thing to do, and in your world no law-abiding citizen would have. But what about a person who wants to commit a crime or go on a shooting spree? I don't think they have much respect for the law. I don't think this is an accurate statement of Canadian law. In Canada no one can carry any concealed firearm except for police officers. We also have very high jail sentences for discharging a firearm in the commission of an offence (four year minimum -- well, it's high by Canadian standards!) Strangely, in Canada criminals still seem to be able to get their hands on guns.
I know those facts are also true, but the small mags are also part of the laws. I am not saying that small mags alone solves the issue, but damn, they need to start making some steps in the right direction. Any step in the right direction is better than sitting around saying that nothing should be done because the situation is complicated.
|
On December 15 2012 13:14 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:07 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 13:01 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:55 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:46 magicmUnky wrote:
Yeah but if the guns are hard to obtain due to licensing and regulation, the demand will drop; it's a disincentive. If there are less guns floating around then why would home-owners want them for personal protection? If gun licenses are expensive then that's just another disincentive.
You're right that there's a huge cultural block but I think that's easier to deal with than it's been made out to be. I can only imagine that arguments like yours will win and that America will continue to be full of gun crime, on top of all the regular crime. I expect to see another psycho shooting up a school in the next year and the world will be thinking, "only in America". America is not full of gun crime. Look at this chart over a 15 year period. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.cfmDon't believe so much what you hear on the news, instead using your reasoning so we can preserve threatened principles. To give that chart some scale, you should compare it to firearm violence rates in other countries. I know it's a hard concept since I've been having to repeat it to you, but the U.S. is not Denmark, a nation of 5 million people. The cultures are completely different, the history different. It would make no sense to compare the two. You are arguing that even though the US is statistically proven to be the first world country with the highest rate of firearm related incidents and deaths (by quite a margin) per capita, it is not actually that dangerous because of its history and its population?
I said that the U.S. is not Denmark. You cannot reasonable enforce a gun ban here as states and the fed have tried in the past. What cities, districts, and states have found is that implementing a gun ban has the opposite effect. Gun control policy is not efficacious in decreasing gun crime in the U.S. at all. I posted a chart showing the decreasing levels of gun-related crime through a 15 year period, all the while gun ownership is at an all time high. He wanted it compared to another country, but they are apples and oranges. The U.S. is somewhat unique in this way because of it's history, culture, and population. Not purely because of those reasons, but they contribute.
|
On December 15 2012 13:14 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:07 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 13:01 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:55 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:46 magicmUnky wrote:
Yeah but if the guns are hard to obtain due to licensing and regulation, the demand will drop; it's a disincentive. If there are less guns floating around then why would home-owners want them for personal protection? If gun licenses are expensive then that's just another disincentive.
You're right that there's a huge cultural block but I think that's easier to deal with than it's been made out to be. I can only imagine that arguments like yours will win and that America will continue to be full of gun crime, on top of all the regular crime. I expect to see another psycho shooting up a school in the next year and the world will be thinking, "only in America". America is not full of gun crime. Look at this chart over a 15 year period. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.cfmDon't believe so much what you hear on the news, instead using your reasoning so we can preserve threatened principles. To give that chart some scale, you should compare it to firearm violence rates in other countries. I know it's a hard concept since I've been having to repeat it to you, but the U.S. is not Denmark, a nation of 5 million people. The cultures are completely different, the history different. It would make no sense to compare the two. You are arguing that even though the US is statistically proven to be the first world country with the highest rate of firearm related incidents and deaths (by quite a margin) per capita, it is not actually that dangerous because of its history and its population?
No hes saying that the countries are different so their circumstances are different. The effectiveness of law enforcement and corruption is a ton different between Russia and USA because of the cultural differences. You can't compare the 2 because they come from completely different histories and value completely different things. If you compare the amount of gang violence in USA compared to the gang violence in europeian countries you're also going to have completely different things going on.
|
On December 15 2012 13:15 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:10 Eishi_Ki wrote:On December 15 2012 13:03 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 13:00 Defacer wrote:On December 15 2012 12:52 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:42 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents. The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her. Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be. O.o i have no words... Either i don`t understand just how terrible and dangerous the USA is or how freaking afraid americans are I'm not quite sure how to break this to you, but Israel is not in the USA. Thats not what i was going at... The fact that he finds that not so absurd... Assuming that arming everyone in every circumstance would make the world safer is just as ridiculous and inactionable as banning guns outright. And if I had to choose an 'extreme' to live in, I would chose the latter. I don't want to live in a world where I can see a zit-faced barista's gun tucked into his shirt as he's stirring my fucking coffee. Lmfao, I agree. Owning a firearm =/= carrying it everywhere with you. Reasonable restrictions are best, but an outright ban is just nonsense. Also, just clarifying that I said I didn't agree with being armed in every, or even most, circumstance. Just the right to own. Why is an outright ban nonsense? I hear the rest of the first world's doing a-o-k without them Start on page 191-192 and go from there. Banning firearms in the U.S. has the opposite effect of what you might expect. It's counter-intuitive.
The argument is flawed because there have only been bans in certain areas of the country, or even areas of states. Look at cigarettes for example: taxes are really high for them in New York, but if you drive down to Virginia you will find them at half the price, and can easily drive a car full of them home, as there are no stops at state lines. The same problem exists when you can drive to Virginia and buy a gun at a gun show without having to register it or have a license, and then take it back to whatever state it is illegal to own it in.
However, if you were to have one set of laws for guns at a national level they would be much more effective. At the same time though in MY opinion, such laws would take decades to have a major impact, as there are so many guns already in the population. You would need to implement a plan, such as a tax rebate for trading in your guns, to diminish the amount of guns already in the populace.
|
Might you explain the implications of history, culture, and population? I have a hard time putting that into what elsewise seems to be a pragmatist's approach to the situation (gun bans are simply not practical) as I feel its a rather generalized and theoretical statement... in what concrete ways are you claiming our nation's history, culture, and population are 1) different from others', 2) influential in regards to gun ownership, laws, crimes, etc.?
|
United States24673 Posts
On December 15 2012 13:18 Focuspants wrote:
Any step in the right direction is better than sitting around saying that nothing should be done because the situation is complicated.
The danger is that rash action in the wake of tragedies like the on today will lead to steps that aren't necessarily in the right direction. Shootings can be motivators to address the issues more actively, but shouldn't be the trigger for a policy change, in my opinion. Policy changes need to be the result of studying the issue and understanding what the ramifications will most likely be of changes to the law.
|
On December 15 2012 13:16 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:00 Defacer wrote:On December 15 2012 12:52 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:42 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents. The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her. Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be. O.o i have no words... Either i don`t understand just how terrible and dangerous the USA is or how freaking afraid americans are I'm not quite sure how to break this to you, but Israel is not in the USA. Thats not what i was going at... The fact that he finds that not so absurd... Assuming that arming everyone in every circumstance would make the world safer is just as ridiculous and inactionable as banning guns outright. And if I had to choose an 'extreme' to live in, I would chose the latter. I don't want to live in a world where I can see a zit-faced barista's gun tucked into his shirt as he's stirring my fucking coffee. Why inactionable.. the world changes.. its an ignorant thought to think its impossible. I mean, any and all statistics show the rate of war, murder, rape etc is on a decline world wide. its slow and steady decline, barely perceivable in a lifetime.. but as we progress as a species we live in less and less fear of one another, which one can hope... leads to less need for the population to feel it needs to defend itself from one another. Guns aren`t going anywhere..of course not.. but people`s need to own them can SURELY decrease.
I don't disagree. I just think in every one of these debates some goofy poster chimes in with "We should ban guns." Well, obviously the world would be a safer place without guns. But that isn't really a helpful argument or contribute to a useful discussion.
You can't wish 350 million guns that are already in circulation away. That's what I mean by 'inactionable'. Banning guns is an idealistic goal with no sensible or operative plan to make it happen.
I agree with a lot of Marc Ambinder's no-nonsense plan, with a graduated licensing process for different classes of guns.
The answer to me is fairly obvious: Everyone who wants to have access to a gun can do so provided they register their weapon and get state-sanctioned training. The types of guns that people can carry on their persons ought to be limited to those made legitimately for self-defense. The gun show loophole should be closed; with the exception of family-to-family transactions or old weapons given as gifts, every sale or exchange of a weapon must be registered. The instant background check will be replaced for new gun owners with a state-approved training course that includes a more extensive background check. (Each state course would have to meet basic federal guidelines but could differ in the particulars.)
|
|
|
On December 15 2012 13:18 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:13 ziggurat wrote:On December 15 2012 13:10 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 13:05 Focuspants wrote:On December 15 2012 12:59 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:55 Focuspants wrote:
I think banning assault weapons is a no brainer. I understand the complexity of the situation in the US, however, allowing people easy access to such lethal killing tools is insane. You dont need an assault rifle to defend yourself. The fact of the matter is, these people that shoot up schools, movie theaters, malls, etc... strike suddenly, in places where an assault weapon of your own as a law abiding citizen is nowhere to be found. Even if for some stupid reason you did have it on you, firing an automatic weapon in a public place like this would be careless.
These weapons are not for sport, not for home defense, etc... They are extremely efficient killing tools, capable of making anyone who holds it powerful, and able to kill many people in a very short time span. Weapons like that have no place in society. I will quote my previous post regarding this: 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? Is it the pistol grip? The cycling mechanism? The stock? What exactly? 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. Also, Keep in mind the Jared Loughner used a shotgun to shoot up the theater. Is the next step banning shotguns? Most gun crime involves handguns/pistols. Do what they do here in Canada. No matter what sort of gun you own, a clip only holds 3 or 4 bullets max. Allowing someone to walk around with a weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds off in a minute or two is ludicrous. That's not good policy. What's preventing people from switching multiple mags. From customizing their own magazines? It's a fairly easy thing to do, and in your world no law-abiding citizen would have. But what about a person who wants to commit a crime or go on a shooting spree? I don't think they have much respect for the law. I don't think this is an accurate statement of Canadian law. In Canada no one can carry any concealed firearm except for police officers. We also have very high jail sentences for discharging a firearm in the commission of an offence (four year minimum -- well, it's high by Canadian standards!) Strangely, in Canada criminals still seem to be able to get their hands on guns. I know those facts are also true, but the small mags are also part of the laws. I am not saying that small mags alone solves the issue, but damn, they need to start making some steps in the right direction. Any step in the right direction is better than sitting around saying that nothing should be done because the situation is complicated.
I agree with your sentiment, I really do. Things do need to be done, but the problem is that the people who write the laws, like my representative Dianne Feinstein, have the least knowledge of the subject. What ends up happening is that weird laws are created where you cannot own a rifle with "evil features" like a telescoping stock with a pistol grip, or a forward mounted grip. High-capacity mags are banned in CA but you can still use pre-1999 ban mags that go up to 30, as long as you have a bullet button, oh and make sure that it doesn't have a magnet! Get familiar with firearms, try to get a sporting rifle, or an AR, and see just how convoluted and non-sense and backwards the laws have become.
The solution is to get better screening, but people will still get through, like the man today who decided it was cool to shoot children. He wasn't a legal gun owner afaik, and according to news sources is mentally unstable (obviously), autistic, and has a personality disorder. Sadly, most of the time gun crimes are perpetrated by, you guessed it, criminals who are not registered. So the problem is not with the registered gun owners, it's with crazy people who get access to the black market/steal.
|
On December 15 2012 13:24 bluemanrocks wrote:
Might you explain the implications of history, culture, and population? I have a hard time putting that into what elsewise seems to be a pragmatist's approach to the situation (gun bans are simply not practical) as I feel its a rather generalized and theoretical statement... in what concrete ways are you claiming our nation's history, culture, and population are 1) different from others', 2) influential in regards to gun ownership, laws, crimes, etc.?
I think the major thing he is thinking about is we're a 'melting pot.'
|
On December 15 2012 13:22 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:15 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 13:10 Eishi_Ki wrote:On December 15 2012 13:03 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 13:00 Defacer wrote:On December 15 2012 12:52 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:42 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:
[quote]
The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her.
Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be. O.o i have no words... Either i don`t understand just how terrible and dangerous the USA is or how freaking afraid americans are I'm not quite sure how to break this to you, but Israel is not in the USA. Thats not what i was going at... The fact that he finds that not so absurd... Assuming that arming everyone in every circumstance would make the world safer is just as ridiculous and inactionable as banning guns outright. And if I had to choose an 'extreme' to live in, I would chose the latter. I don't want to live in a world where I can see a zit-faced barista's gun tucked into his shirt as he's stirring my fucking coffee. Lmfao, I agree. Owning a firearm =/= carrying it everywhere with you. Reasonable restrictions are best, but an outright ban is just nonsense. Also, just clarifying that I said I didn't agree with being armed in every, or even most, circumstance. Just the right to own. Why is an outright ban nonsense? I hear the rest of the first world's doing a-o-k without them Start on page 191-192 and go from there. Banning firearms in the U.S. has the opposite effect of what you might expect. It's counter-intuitive. The argument is flawed because there have only been bans in certain areas of the country, or even areas of states. Look at cigarettes for example: taxes are really high for them in New York, but if you drive down to Virginia for example you will find them at half the price, and can easily drive a car full of them home, as there are no stops at state lines. The same problem exists when you can drive to Virginia and buy a gun at a gun show without having to register it or have a license, and then take it back to whatever state it is illegal to own it in. However, if you were to have one set of laws for guns at a national level they would be much more effective. At the same time though in MY opinion, such laws would take decades to have a major impact, as there are so many guns already in the population. You would need to implement a plan, such as a tax rebate for trading in your guns, to diminish the amount of guns already in the populace.
How would that do anything? the way these gun control laws are working is that it makes it harder for people to legally buy guns. So then now only criminals have guns and the law abiding citizens can't defend themselves. On the other side communities that increase their gun ownership have seen a decrease in the amount of gun violence in their area because of the increase in the number of guns with law abiding citizens.
Any government action isn't going to affect criminals, its only going to hurt the people trying to defend themselves from criminals.
|
If you're talking about who i think, then yeah im pretty sure hes making up 99% of what he says.
|
On February 20 2012 03:10 Macabre wrote:
People killed people just fine before guns. And they will continue to do so for the rest of time, with or without them.
|
On December 15 2012 13:24 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:18 Focuspants wrote:
Any step in the right direction is better than sitting around saying that nothing should be done because the situation is complicated.
The danger is that rash action in the wake of tragedies like the on today will lead to steps that aren't necessarily in the right direction. Shootings can be motivators to address the issues more actively, but shouldn't be the trigger for a policy change, in my opinion. Policy changes need to be the result of studying the issue and understanding what the ramifications will most likely be of changes to the law.
I agree laws shouldnt be reactionary to a single event, but there seems to be an epidemic. You are now perpetually in the wake of one of these sorts of disasters. When you look at the cumulative body of events which have occurred over the past few years, you should see that as motivation to start figuring things out rather quickly.
|
On December 15 2012 13:22 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:15 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 13:10 Eishi_Ki wrote:On December 15 2012 13:03 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 13:00 Defacer wrote:On December 15 2012 12:52 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:47 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:42 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:
[quote]
The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her.
Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be. O.o i have no words... Either i don`t understand just how terrible and dangerous the USA is or how freaking afraid americans are I'm not quite sure how to break this to you, but Israel is not in the USA. Thats not what i was going at... The fact that he finds that not so absurd... Assuming that arming everyone in every circumstance would make the world safer is just as ridiculous and inactionable as banning guns outright. And if I had to choose an 'extreme' to live in, I would chose the latter. I don't want to live in a world where I can see a zit-faced barista's gun tucked into his shirt as he's stirring my fucking coffee. Lmfao, I agree. Owning a firearm =/= carrying it everywhere with you. Reasonable restrictions are best, but an outright ban is just nonsense. Also, just clarifying that I said I didn't agree with being armed in every, or even most, circumstance. Just the right to own. Why is an outright ban nonsense? I hear the rest of the first world's doing a-o-k without them Start on page 191-192 and go from there. Banning firearms in the U.S. has the opposite effect of what you might expect. It's counter-intuitive. The argument is flawed because there have only been bans in certain areas of the country, or even areas of states. Look at cigarettes for example: taxes are really high for them in New York, but if you drive down to Virginia you will find them at half the price, and can easily drive a car full of them home, as there are no stops at state lines. The same problem exists when you can drive to Virginia and buy a gun at a gun show without having to register it or have a license, and then take it back to whatever state it is illegal to own it in. However, if you were to have one set of laws for guns at a national level they would be much more effective. At the same time though in MY opinion, such laws would take decades to have a major impact, as there are so many guns already in the population. You would need to implement a plan, such as a tax rebate for trading in your guns, to diminish the amount of guns already in the populace.
Gun bans have been found to be unconstitutional
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
