EPTeven if it wasn't completely banned, assault rifles should still be more heavily regulated than handguns or hunting rifles. Theres absolutely no excuse that a guy with mental issues is able to get his hands on a bushmaster and go shoot up a class full of 1st graders. Zero excuse for that. Same with the 2007 virginia tech shootings.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
even if it wasn't completely banned, assault rifles should still be more heavily regulated than handguns or hunting rifles. Theres absolutely no excuse that a guy with mental issues is able to get his hands on a bushmaster and go shoot up a class full of 1st graders. Zero excuse for that. Same with the 2007 virginia tech shootings. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On December 18 2012 03:26 white_horse wrote: Fair enough. I wasn't necessarily trying to point at you only, but anyone who supports the NRA and other gun lobbies. No, the gun lobbies and their paranoid, half baked semi-anarchist, tin-foil underpants rhetoric are half of the reason we can't have nice things. If they had two brain cells to rub together they'd know that we wouldn't have the slightest use for guns in self defense if there weren't the sort of people out there who make gun control a good idea. Beyond that, it just comes down to hypotheticals about what would turn into effective gun control for the US. And yes, restriction = good. Like I've said, I think a good start beyond better enforcement of current laws would be a "your gun, your fault" law. Make people whose negligence enabled a gun crime legally culpable for those crimes, along with the person who commits them. That law wouldn't bother smart, safe gun owners, because they're smart and safe, which, theoretically, would include knowing how and when to have that shit inaccessible. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On December 18 2012 03:33 JingleHell wrote: No, the gun lobbies and their paranoid, half baked semi-anarchist, tin-foil underpants rhetoric are half of the reason we can't have nice things. If they had two brain cells to rub together they'd know that we wouldn't have the slightest use for guns in self defense if there weren't the sort of people out there who make gun control a good idea. Beyond that, it just comes down to hypotheticals about what would turn into effective gun control for the US. And yes, restriction = good. Like I've said, I think a good start beyond better enforcement of current laws would be a "your gun, your fault" law. Make people whose negligence enabled a gun crime legally culpable for those crimes, along with the person who commits them. That law wouldn't bother smart, safe gun owners, because they're smart and safe, which, theoretically, would include knowing how and when to have that shit inaccessible. I think the crux of the issue is how do you let smart and safe homeowners own guns while making them inaccessible to those who shouldn't have them? In the case of the CT shootings, the guns were owned by a smart and safe person but still ended up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have had them. Is there an effective and reasonably efficient method to do so? While I agree with the concept of restriction, I have yet to see an implementation that would be both fair to benign gun owners while being effective in reducing availability of guns to would be criminals. I think there's some obvious first steps, like making all sales go through an FFL, but I don't think doing these alone will have a significant impact. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On December 18 2012 04:06 ZeaL. wrote: I think the crux of the issue is how do you let smart and safe homeowners own guns while making them inaccessible to those who shouldn't have them? In the case of the CT shootings, the guns were owned by a smart and safe person but still ended up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have had them. Is there an effective and reasonably efficient method to do so? While I agree with the concept of restriction, I have yet to see an implementation that would be both fair to benign gun owners while being effective in reducing availability of guns. I think there's some obvious first steps, like making all sales go through an FFL, but I don't think doing these alone will have a significant impact. Why not? The fact of the matter is that a pragmatic and effective form of gun regulation is going to revolve around the small things, be they community gun turn ins, regulation consolidation, or mere optimization. There is an immense amount of work to be done as it pertains to tightening and enforcing regulations that already exist, and you can't say that doing those things won't decrease the prevalence of firearms. | ||
|
JiYan
United States3668 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
I take self-defense seriously. But getting a gun should be at least as hard as getting a driver's license. A citizen who wants a gun and a concealed carry permit should go through exactly the same training and recertification as a cop would... it's easier to get a gun as a citizen than as a cop. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On December 18 2012 04:10 farvacola wrote: Why not? The fact of the matter is that a pragmatic and effective form of gun regulation is going to revolve around the small things, be they community gun turn ins, regulation consolidation, or mere optimization. There is an immense amount of work to be done as it pertains to tightening and enforcing regulations that already exist, and you can't say that doing those things won't decrease the prevalence of firearms. I think the main issue for me is the fact that with so many guns in circulation in the US, obtaining a gun by through acquaintances, theft, or illegal methods is much easier than in countries without such a historical gun culture. While there is indeed much work to be done with regards to enforcement of current laws and passage of common sense laws, its my impression that they can't work around the fact that we have a shit ton of guns floating around in the hands of questionable people already. | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On December 18 2012 04:27 ZeaL. wrote: I think the main issue for me is the fact that with so many guns in circulation in the US, obtaining a gun by through acquaintances, theft, or illegal methods is much easier than in countries without such a historical gun culture. While there is indeed much work to be done with regards to enforcement of current laws and passage of common sense laws, its my impression that they can't work around the fact that we have a shit ton of guns floating around in the hands of questionable people already. Well, you are right to point out how incredibly uphill gun control necessarily is in the US, as the NRA and their respective opposition benefit from keeping the discussion muddled in ideology rather than dealing with pragmatic specifics. That being said, the presence of guns in American society is not monolithic nor indefatigable; contrary to popular belief (and a lot of posting in this thread), community gun turn ins are incredibly productive and really complicate caricatures of gun wielding criminals shooting up everything. Having attended a few in Detroit at the behest of my father, I was incredibly surprised as to how many people who could be considered extremely "ghetto" in appearance turned out with weapons of all sorts, from fully automatic assault weapons to hand grenades to modified handguns. The thing is, this nebulous mass of criminals who gun nuts seek to caricature and keep in the public's mind for polemic reasons is actually far different and nuanced than many would like to admit. What's funny is that many gun nuts are also against "big government", and in many locales have voted down budgets that included funds for these sorts of gun turn ins, further perpetuating stereotypes that are simply not true. There are a great many avenues with which we can do down and reduce the pervasion of guns, we need only look in places we haven't for a long while. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
p0q
Denmark22 Posts
I mean, there's no way that doesn't result in more killing. A lot of it is probably accidental. But if you don't have the means you wont do the crime. If everyone has the means, there's bound to be more crimes. And all that "How is a person suppose to defend them self without a gun"... well, they're not. Yes criminals have guns in my country, no if they broke in to my apartment i probably wouldn't be able to do anything but give them what they wanted. But i wouldn't get shot because i tried to shoot them and i wouldn't kill my 5 year old because i thought he was a burglar... And my insurance would replace whatever they stole. And the freedom argument is just dumb. We live in organized society, we have about as much freedom as a fish in a bowl. But i guess giving people guns helps keep up the illusion of freedom. It's like handing out bombs to retards in my mind. Your basically asking for trouble. In Denmark 96% of murders are solved by the police. I'm pretty sure that the fact that not everyone is able to get a hold of a firearm makes it a a lot easier to solve murders. Hell, it's illegal to carry a knife if your not a hunter on your way to or from hunting... And i quite like it that way. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
I guess we can all agree it's best to ban them since they are quite obviously useless. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
In this case the criminal was likely looking for an area with as little security as possible and where he was unlikely to be shot at himself. He picked a school that banned guns which created a situation where there were hundreds of people in the building, but only the homicidal lunatic had a gun. Rather than end his life in a shootout with police he instead chose to kill himself rather than face someone else with a gun. If anything this lesson teaches the importance of arming responsible citizens. A armed and trained security guard at the school might have deterred the criminal. There are 300 million firearms in the USA. The government has neither now nor in the past shown competence at keeping out alcohol or illegal drugs out of the hands of criminals. Laws designed to restrict gun possession will only decrease possession amongst law abiding citizens. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On December 18 2012 05:35 meadbert wrote: Gun control did not prevent the disaster in Connecticut. Guns were already banned on the school's property. The problem is that just because a government writes down a law, does not mean that criminals will obey it. In this case the criminal was likely looking for an area with as little security as possible and where he was unlikely to be shot at himself. He picked a school that banned guns which created a situation where there were hundreds of people in the building, but only the homicidal lunatic had a gun. Rather than end his life in a shootout with police he instead chose to kill himself rather than face someone else with a gun. If anything this lesson teaches the importance of arming responsible citizens. A armed and trained security guard at the school might have deterred the criminal. There are 300 million firearms in the USA. The government has neither now nor in the past shown competence at keeping out alcohol or illegal drugs out of the hands of criminals. Laws designed to restrict gun possession will only decrease possession amongst law abiding citizens. Please read the thread instead of simply dropping by to tell everyone how you feel. This argument has already been drawn out and is quite tired, and you'd know that had you read. Gun regulation can also include initiatives like gun turn-ins and better state/federal cooperation, small changes that can affect criminal as well as public availability of firearms. This is about long-term, gradual reductions in the ubiquity of firearms and their ease of procurement, not magical cures or reactionary measures. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
| ||
|
FlilFlam
Canada109 Posts
If the goal is to, by any means, reduce gun related homicide and crime, then the only thing to consider is which form of gun control would be most practical. But this area of consideration alone is enough to produce lengthy and unresolved debates, where dilemmas like 'guns are already in the hands of criminals, making it dangerous to take them away from citizens' will ensure there are always advocates of opposite approaches. The more complex areas of consideration are concerned with the personal and societal moral implications of gun ownership, and gun control. Many view it as a personal freedom to own a weapon and even as a part of their pursuit of happiness. In America and even in the constitution, there is a foundational ideal of independence, and along with that comes the right (necessity in the view of some) to own a weapon. So here we have a dilemma in that the action of restricting gun access to groups and individuals creates a real or perceived harmful effect in the form of restricting freedom. Is it justifiable to reduce or remove access to guns in order to make society a safer place? We already do that sort of thing all the time. You'll get a ticket for parking in a fire lane or having a bonfire during a drought. You will go to jail if you drive a car while drunk, and we will lock you up for peddling narcotics. The question becomes where do we draw the line, and how committed are we to working together and making sacrifices to make it a better place for everyone? Someone with socialist ideals might wholeheartedly support the idea of gun control, as contained within socialism is the idea that cooperation amongst ourselves is the most efficient way to be productive, of which the notion self-sacrifice for the greater good is a necessary component. Socioeconomically socialism echoes this in its redistribution of wealth. Inevitably there will be harder working and more productive individuals than others, and to a degree the wealth and value they create will be sacrificed for the good of another. Perhaps this is the best way. Someone with libertarian ideals however might completely disagree, having no desire to be a part of a vested interest society and instead preferring the concept of independence and self-reliance. Bereft of the 'work together' attitude, losing a gun can seem like outrageous thievery in severely crippling ones capacity for self protection. When self-reliance is the goal you push toward, not having a gun in a world with guns is a terrible option; independence without safety has no value, so in order to not be dependent on society for safety (inherent in libertarianism), guns are simply required. Given the great depth of the various perspectives on gun control, I believe that there will be no quick change or resolution to the debate and the law. Only when the population is politically and ideologically undivided can a conclusion be reached and implemented. In a time when the ideological divide is perhaps greater than ever, it's only natural that we have long and confusing discussions where conflicts in reality highlight all of our conflicts in ideology. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4356 Posts
On December 17 2012 20:47 Velr wrote: Ahm.... WTF? So... Your train of tought is the following: Germany is implementing tough austerity measures on Greece, Spain and Italy (which Germany itself is not doing because it can't, you must be thinking of the "EU" in which germany is very important but nothing more). Therefore it would be good for Greece, Spain and Italy to have citizens with the right to own arms? WTF? I'm totally lost on what exactly you want to say or how it is relevant to this at all but i feel save to say that it's uttterly stupid. You don't understand the economic situation there do you? Go and research economic competitiveness charts and see how much Germany has increased it's competitiveness against Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, even France. What would normally happen in this situation is German currency would appreciate and the curriencies in the other nations would depreciate but since the Euro is EU wide this is impossible.This is why these countries rightly blame Germany - did you miss the headlines in Italian newspapers the other week stating germany was in it's "Fourth Reich" or the protests against Merkel in Greece? Anyway i don't think there is any doubt the EU is a tyrannical government.Look at the Irish Lisbon referendums for proof of that.There is only one "right" answer for those guys, if you choose the wrong answer be prepeared to be asked again and again until you give the correct answer.That is in the rare occasions when the people actually get a say. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
1) Institute state-sanctioned licensing and training for guns under some overarching federal standards. Training and courses can be refined, localized and provided by gun clubs and state law enforcement. 2) Require different levels of licensing for different classes of guns. Hunting and sporting rifles would be the lowest class, and a have a low barrier of entry (16-18, no criminal or juvenile record, standardized written/multiple choice test). Semi-automatic assault rifles would be the highest class, and would require courses provided by law enforcement, training, an extensive criminal background check, etc. Sponsorship or references from a gun club or someone already with certification to own and operate these guns would also be required. A concealed carry permit would require ongoing training, education and re-certification ... for as long as you want one. Now, I don't imagine the training or education courses to be any more difficult than getting a motorcycle license or passing a high school civics class. But the primary reason for them would be force prospective gun owners to spend 6 to 8 weeks in a classroom and at a firing range with an instructor. There is absolutely no way an experienced gun owner would allow someone like Adam Lanz to have access to an assault rifle legally if they spent any amount of time with him, just based on his attitude and behaviour. 3) Ban private gun sales without a background check, period. Private gun owners could only sell or gift guns to relatives (allowing for deceased to bequeath guns to relatives). Come up with a comprehensive ID or certification system that pre-authorizes individuals to buy and sell guns online and at gun shows, similar to a getting a Nexus pass for crossing the Canada/US border. You'd need to show or submit this ID every time you tried to purchase a gun from a private owner. Individuals would have to submit themselves to a thorough background check and supply references to qualify. | ||
| ||
