|
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 April 18 2013 14:21 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:44 Millitron wrote:
The UK used their gun registry to confiscate practically all guns. They had gotten a registry passed, then when they banned the guns, they gave people a short period to turn them in peacefully, and if they didn't, the police seized them, using the registry to find said people.
Um...no. we have a registry on guns, yet people still seem to own them. They can go shooting and everything. What happened was, we had a shooting in a school - it was in a small town called Dunblane, where the tennis pro Andy Murray is from. I believe he was a student at that school at the time, actually, though I might be misremembering. Anyways, just one. That's all it took, and public opinion went against gun ownership and many of them were confiscated. Thing is, the gun registry wasn't created to keep tabs on gun owners, it was to keep tabs on who had guns! Insane idea, knowing who possesses firearms. But then, that might simply be a personal view, and I admit that fully. I'm just not into the idea that my government is out to get me, which seems such a common idea in the US. I have to say I find it strange, this notion of not caring who is buying weaponry. And guns are weaponry, regardless of usage. I don't particularly have a problem with guns, or people who own them. What I want is a well regulated gun industry, with the government having knowledge of who is buying these weapons. Unfortunately what we get here is the hyperbolic and frankly shameful NRA refusing to consider any kind of legislation (Guns don't kill people! People do! And TV! Videogames! The guns have nothing to do with it!!!!), senators who will outright lie and people who seem scared to even consider the notion that maybe being able to buy assault rifles without a background check might be a decent idea. Hmm. Please don't drag my country into your gun debate, especially if you're going to spout crap. I had enough of that when people were talking about Obamacare.
Well, since you are one of "closest allies" as Micronesia said, I extend my condolences to you that your government confiscated your guns, resulting in the utter loss of freedom in your country. Clearly, freedom cannot exist without a bunch of guns around.
Though it isn't fully automatic guns that provide freedom, only semi-automatic. I want to qualify that, since the United States enjoys freedom without fully automatic weapons.
On April 18 2013 14:21 Sanctimonius wrote:
I'm just not into the idea that my government is out to get me, which seems such a common idea in the US..
It is a common idea because of the Republican Party. They believe the government can do no good, and when they get into office, they go about trying to prove that theory.
One of the results was George W. Bush, and his war in Iraq to hunt down non-existent WMD's.
Welcome to America.
|
|
|
What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. 
The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public.
|
http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdf
Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows.
"63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"
We don't need background checks at gun shows?
On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public.
How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun...
Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns.
|
Even though I personally would prefere to see no guns, I have to say that you should never make
a law that would allow a future government to abuse it simply because you don't expect your current one
or the next 10 to abuse it.
From my understanding, the reason for the 2nd amendment is so that the people should always be able
to overthrow a corrupt and/or abusive government in order to secure a free state.
If you see the threat of a future abusive government using a registry to disarm the people when faced
with an uprising or what have you, then the fact that todays government wouldn't do it is irrelevant.
I guess the question then would be whether or not the benefits of having more responsible gun owners now
outweights the risk of a future abusive government being able to fight back a resistance movement because
of the limited weaponry available to that militia.
Personally I would argue that you stand a better chance of defeating a future abusive government if you would
force them not to spend ~$700 billion yearly on their military today.
|
On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns.
Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns.
And while law enforcement in the survey don't want more restrictions on guns, and even believe trained gun owners with concealed weapons would prevent crime and improve public safety, they are absolutely are for better training for potential gun owners. I was just commenting on how interesting it is that they don't see it as a contradiction (and neither do I).
If you were Sheriff or Chief, how would you respond to more restrictive gun laws?
44.9% Not enforce and join in the public, vocal opposition effort
Do you think increasing the severity of punishments for gun trafficking, particularly by
unlicensed dealers or "straw purchasers" who buy arms for persons ineligible to own
them, would reduce instances of gun crime?
58.8% Yes
.Should citizens be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to
buy a gun?
42.3% Yes, for all weapons
14.4% Yes, but only for certain weapons
|
Northern Ireland25995 Posts
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind.
|
On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns.
Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption.
I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns?
Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me.
I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?"
On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind.
Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God.
|
On April 18 2013 13:38 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:14 tokicheese wrote:On April 18 2013 12:55 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 12:17 tokicheese wrote:On April 18 2013 12:14 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 11:42 tokicheese wrote:On April 18 2013 09:47 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote:
Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!" More like, "Why won't my mommy buy me guns! Waaaaaah!" Who know's right? If it was illegal for her to share guns with her son, maybe she wouldn't have bought them in the first place. It was my understanding the only reason she collected guns was so she could share a hobby with her weird, distant son. Again, doesn't keep a crazy person from trying to do something crazy, but why make it easy? Requiring someone to have a license to shoot a gun they don't own is a terrible idea lol... Unless the only option for people to shoot is at a range how could they ever hope to enforce the law... Have a cop sitting in every bush across the US keeping an eye out? Even if a cop did find some people shooting guns if one person doesn't have a license is he going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlicensed person was shooting? Again, an all-or-nothing argument. All laws are breakable. Should we make abandon rape laws because you can't follow every kid home from school? Or make drunk driving legal because you can't have road checks at every corner? Come on. Just because theirs no law that can be enforceable 100% of the time, or just because you can't prevent crime 100%, doesn't we should give up on improving the law. Having laws and having stiff penalties for breaking DOES deter crime. Stop being such a cynical hipster. Comparing someone shooting a gun without a license which isn't a bad thing any ways to rape is just an appeal to emotion. What exactly would that law prevent? Everyone who shoots a gun unlicensed is going to go on a shooting spree? I shot a gun without a license when I was a kid because you can't get a real gun license here until your 19. Holy shit I'm a criminal I shot a gun in a America, when I was under 19, without a licence or any experience whatsoever. Awwwwwwweeesome? You right though. In ideal world, a gun license in America would actually mean something — it would be like a driver's license or a welding ticket and represent some level of vetting and standard of training. But making it illegal for unlicensed or unpermitted people from operating a gun would do almost nothing, because the standards are so low. Any yahoo that can tick boxes on a form can get a license. Congratulations, you've convinced me your right, while somehow getting me to have LESS respect for gun owners and gun culture in general. This is the reason why negative stereotypes of pro-gun rights advocates persist. As long as they insist on having such low standards for all current and potential gun owners — such as insisting even some random Canadian deserves to shoot a round now and then! — every argument they make rings hollow and disingenuous. People can cite all the statistics they want but you can't argue that gun owners or sellers are responsible because there's barely any due process to getting a gun in America. There has to be a way for responsible gun owners to protect their rights without constantly providing cover for every idiot or jag-offs that wants a gun. You really love the name calling eh. First calling any one who questioned Amanda Todds a pimple faced geek in the Amanda Todd thread and now calling all gun owners essentially irresponsible. Get off your fucking high horse dude. You constantly shoot off ad hominims in every thread and it gets really fucking old. Man up and bring up a real argument to the table. First of all I'm Canadian. Even Canada with it's tight as fuck gun laws doesn't ban you from shooting a gun without a license because it's fucking retarded. It would accomplish literally nothing. First of all it couldn't be enforced in any way shape or form except for the extremely small fringe of people who shoot at a range without a license. (Places like DVC in Vancouver). I'm sure the range owners would love you for ruining there businesses though. Second passing laws that do nothing is retarded. I'm sorry but it just is. Someone who is going to shoot people isn't going to stop and say "Oh noes I might get a misdemeanour tacked onto my mass killing, better not do it" Even assuming it would make a differenc ein that scenario what is bad about shooting a gun without a license if it's done safely. Obviously someone has to have a license to have that gun so they are responsible for the safe use of the gun. You still haven't said why law is needed. Your just saying how scared you are of people ticking boxes and running around the woods shooting all over the place. Well I hate to break it to you but the #1 cause of death by firearm is suicide. Accidents is a distant second. The law does nothing and is a really stupid idea sorry to burst your bubble. "People can cite all the statistics they want but you can't argue that gun owners or sellers are responsible because there's barely any due process to getting a gun in America." So an actual reasonable discussion is impossible because your basing your entire argument being scared. Like every thread your in. Most gun owners want responsible ownership Idk where your pulling all these things out of your ass from... Why are you so angry? I said I absolutely agree with you. The standard for getting a gun licence is more strict in Canada, and I think to our benefit. As I already mentioned, if gun license in America actually meant something, and distinguished people that were trained to own and operate a gun from people that aren't, a law that required you obtain a license to shoot a gun would discourage irresponsible gun owners from sharing guns with people that probably aren't prepared to used them ... or at least make them feel liable for their safety and use (so they don't get caught breaking the law). Maybe people would be less inclined to do stupid shit like this: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sixth-grader-brings-gun-to-school-says-parents-told-him-to-carry-it-for-protection-after-newtown-shootings/You say that a simple law like this wouldn't stop a massacre, and you're probably right — hey, I'm agreeing with you again!— while ignoring the wide spectrum of injuries and deaths, either caused by accidents or stupidity, that could probably be prevented with common sense laws. People are required by law to wear seat belts. And while this is an impossible law to enforce completely or perfectly, it is a primary or secondary offence that drivers can be fined for. And the impact of the law is immense — it's estimated to prevent 40% of potential fatalities. http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/341.pdfSimple laws can have an enormous impact if designed correctly. Is not allowing people to share guns with people that don't know how to use them, somehow, a controversial position? If you don't want to legislate against it, what would you recommend to prevent it? I'd love to hear your ideas. You say most gun owners want responsible gun ownership, but frankly, most of their arguments you read related to this issue are cynical and defeatist, and focused first and foremost on protecting their own property. + Show Spoiler +You're bringing up the slut-shaming of Amanda Todd on TL into this thread? And then criticizing me for calling BS on it? Please.
+ Show Spoiler +Slut shaming? People wanted to make sure she was telling truth instead of blindly starting a witch hunt for someone who may not have done anything wrong. A teenage girl posting a youtube video isn't an iron clad piece of evidence as seen by the RCMP not making any arrests and 4chan outing a bunch of random innocent people fucking up their lives. Name calling is a rather pathetic way to attempt to make a point.
There is no issue with people using guns when they are unlicensed other than when they are committing other serious crimes. There isn't droves of people dying because they went out to shoot with an uncle or a family friend/neighbour because 99.9999% of people who own a gun are not retarded and know how to use one safely. It's really not hard to use a gun safely and properly supervising someone makes it a fun and safe activity. Just live DVC ventures in Vancouver where you can pay per case of bullets in whatever caliber you want with or without a license. Following your logic the door should be blocked by all the corpses.
Why make a law that is going to cost a truck load of money to enforce when there isn't an issue. You still haven't said why we need to make a law to ban people using a properly licensed gun when they themselves are not licensed. What are you trying to prevent by legislating? There is no need for the law at all. My brother is 18 atm and he has taken
Seatbelt laws have an obvious impact on public safety. Banning people who don't have a license using guns when they are properly supervised doesn't improve anything. There isn't a vast pool of people dying because of what your talking about.
|
Northern Ireland25995 Posts
What does slut-shaming have to do with anything? :S
|
The fact that guns are more lethal compared to say knives, rocks, stones or whatever that you can kill with, it will most probably lead to a greater chance of murder.
Let's imagine 2 hypothetical scenarios.
#1: A world with no guns.
#2: A world with everyone carrying a gun.
With all other things being equal, which scenario will be more safe?
What happens if someone in either scenario resorts to violence? It can be assumed that the person in scenario #2 will most likely resort to shooting, whereas the person in scenario #1 will have a lower tendency to kill because he does not possess a weapon as lethal as a gun.
|
On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God.
The survey is very poorly worded and loaded, and designed to justify less 'restrictions' on guns. What's remarkable is that despite this bias, over 50% of law enforcement officers seem to think better training for gun owners is justified*.
*Notice how the weasel-y survey splits an affirmative answer to more training into TWO answers, in order to make it appear that 'no additional training' is the majority answer. Also, when asked about teachers or other school officials having guns in school, it explicitly states that annual training and review of those teachers would be one of the conditions. Basically, they're trained, armed security.
Graduated licensing would limit accessibility to guns, but I don't imagine an a way that is any more onerous than getting a driver's license. Everyone has the opportunity to drive, but we still make people earn that right for public safety.
Poor people also can't buy cars, go out to eat or take piano lessons. I hate to be so callous, because I do believe certain things like healthcare and education should be affordable to all people, because it guarantees a standard of living that prevents a decline into extreme poverty, and improves the economy and public safety overall.
Personally, I don't think guns qualify as a basic necessity. While I think any law-abiding person should be able to get a gun, it doesn't mean that guns should be cheap, free, or available without qualification.
So yes, it's a 'restriction' in the sense that you still need to be qualified to own a gun, and you'd need to take lessons in order to be qualified, but that's not the same as limiting the size of magazines, or banning 'assault' weapons, etc — those to me are true restrictions or limits.
In my fantasy world, guns would be separated into different classes that would require different licenses, like vehicles. Exams and standards for licenses would be defined and tailored by the states, and administered by state/local law enforcement. Gun clubs, gun dealers, or local law enforcement would offer lessons and training to pass these exams. This would provide an alternative and lucrative source of revenue for gun dealers, and have a chance to be supported by pro-gun lobbyists. And yes, it's a plan that poor people and Anti-gun-nuts would likely hate.
|
On April 18 2013 15:31 Wombat_NI wrote:
What does slut-shaming have to do with anything? :S
He's derailing. He's accused me of making ad hominem attacks, while dredging up an old argument from almost a year ago in order to discredit my argument or offer any idea that would encourage responsible gun ownership.
+ Show Spoiler +I also believe he is wrong about that situation, but I'll PM him about that.
|
On April 18 2013 15:34 arcanicst wrote:
Let's imagine 2 hypothetical scenarios.
#1: A world with no guns.
#2: A world with everyone carrying a gun.
With all other things being equal, which scenario will be more safe?
Lets say I sharpen 3 foot hardwood stick into a sharp point... I am now king of the scenario in #1.
I'm not massively interested in this debate, I live in the UK so we get used to having no guns. All I know is if I ever have to defend my girlfriend and the attacker is armed with a handgun (which are owned by some criminals in the UK), I will regret not moving us to America and getting a concealed carry permit.
|
Northern Ireland25995 Posts
Guns remove the whole 'physical' aspect of inflicting violence. Both their great strength and weakness when it comes to fitting into society I guess. For example, women are theoretically safer for having one when it comes to dealing with men who are somewhat larger and stronger on average, but equally it also enables mentally unstable wackjobs to cause a lot more damage than they otherwise would.
|
On April 18 2013 16:03 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 15:31 Wombat_NI wrote:
What does slut-shaming have to do with anything? :S He's derailing. He's accused me of making ad hominem attacks, while dredging up an old argument from almost a year ago in order to discredit my argument or offer any idea that would encourage responsible gun ownership. + Show Spoiler +I also believe he is wrong about that situation, but I'll PM him about that.
Every time you make an argument you have to punctuate it with words like weasly or proclaim how much respect you lose for gun owners. It gets old quite quickly.
And you still haven't addressed why that law is needed yet. You talk about how badly needed the law is in 4 or 5 posts and now you can't even say why it's needed. It's not derailing when I'm pointing out that you have incredibly weak points.
|
On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God.
Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost.
Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him.
|
On April 18 2013 16:13 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 16:03 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 15:31 Wombat_NI wrote:
What does slut-shaming have to do with anything? :S He's derailing. He's accused me of making ad hominem attacks, while dredging up an old argument from almost a year ago in order to discredit my argument or offer any idea that would encourage responsible gun ownership. + Show Spoiler +I also believe he is wrong about that situation, but I'll PM him about that. Every time you make an argument you have to punctuate it with words like weasly or proclaim how much respect you lose for gun owners. It gets old quite quickly. And you still haven't addressed why that law is needed yet.
Read the survey, and look at how the questions and answers are constructed. It is weasel-y.
I've already addressed why the law like that could be useful. I believe that it puts more onus on gun owners to be more responsible with their guns, and who they allow to access and operate them. Even it it's isn't a law that can be perfectly enforced or prevent ALL gun crime or misuse, a simple law or a law like it would discourage irresponsible behaviour — the same way speeding tickets discourage speeding or seatbelt legislation encourages safety.
I'm not pretending it's a silver bullet, or even the best idea in the whole wide world. I even conceded that you're probably right, the impact of such a law might be minimal. It might prevent accidental death or the mishandling of a gun but it's not going to stop any real gun-related crime.
Sheesh.
|
Northern Ireland25995 Posts
On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him.
What course of action and tone do you advocate then?
|
On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him.
I have to say, I actually thought the Chicago politician-routine was going to work. He seemed to get the conversation about gun control further than anyone else in recent memory.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the current gun legislation? Are you fine with it or is there anything you'd like to see changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
