|
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. |
Wrong. Under current laws, legal gun owners can legally give criminals firearms by claiming ignorance. This is the main case that the law addresses.
I would suggest you go test this assertion out and see how well it works out for you when you're arrested and thrown in jail.
|
On May 10 2013 02:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of. That's the way many societies were in antiquity. If you were rich enough to buy a weapon, you'd have one in your house somewhere.
Examples?
|
On May 10 2013 03:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Probably not.
What your new law would do would allow people to transfer guns illegally and laugh at the government's inability to stop them instead of pretending to be ignorant. Criminals and people who consort with criminals usually aren't too respectful of government and its laws.
Giving a gun to someone with the result being that gun is used in a crime means you're facing some big trouble. Giving a gun to someone who is not allowed to have a gun is again already illegal. I think your understanding of current law is flawed.
You heard it here everyone. Might as well just get rid of all laws. After all they are not effective at preventing crime. If you think you're held responsible for what someone does with a gun you sell them, well that shows exactly who has a flawed understanding.
Also did you make it look like all those quotes are of me? I didn't say half the stuff in your post.
|
On May 10 2013 03:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 00:56 -VapidSlug- wrote:
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns. Yes, you are misunderstanding, because you literally didn't reply to ANY part of my point. It isn't about the purpose of the invention; it's about what the tool is effectively used for. It doesn't matter if you, through some convoluted way, rig a nuke to hold up your clothes. There are countless other tools that are more efficient at that task and the only thing that a nuke IS good at is killing people.
This is true for the first few nukes.
Most nukes were made as a deterrent and are not, shall we say, "intended for combat." What a nuke is specifically good at is applying heavy short term and long term damage to an area for little cost of time or execution expenditure. That it kills people is secondary to the "level a city" portion of its explosion. Biological weapons are specifically aimed at killing people, bombs are made at destroying property to shatter moral (and apply apply heavy casualties as well, but the moral is the big part). Nukes changed the dynamic because the boom was so big it transformed bombs from being a device to break the people's will and transformed it into a killing device that breaks the people's world.
TLDR: Nukes were intentionally made to deter violence while being specifically designed to destroy property--that it is good at killing people is secondary.
Now, I would hope that if someone had a nuclear warhead in his backyard being used to hang clothes that the military would do *something* about it.
|
On May 10 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 10 2013 00:56 -VapidSlug- wrote:
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns. Yes, you are misunderstanding, because you literally didn't reply to ANY part of my point. It isn't about the purpose of the invention; it's about what the tool is effectively used for. It doesn't matter if you, through some convoluted way, rig a nuke to hold up your clothes. There are countless other tools that are more efficient at that task and the only thing that a nuke IS good at is killing people. This is true for the first few nukes. Most nukes were made as a deterrent and are not, shall we say, "intended for combat." What a nuke is specifically good at is applying heavy short term and long term damage to an area for little cost of time or execution expenditure. That it kills people is secondary to the "level a city" portion of its explosion. Biological weapons are specifically aimed at killing people, bombs are made at destroying property to shatter moral (and apply apply heavy casualties as well, but the moral is the big part). Nukes changed the dynamic because the boom was so big it transformed bombs from being a device to break the people's will and transformed it into a killing device that breaks the people's world. TLDR: Nukes were intentionally made to deter violence while being specifically designed to destroy property--that it is good at killing people is secondary. Now, I would hope that if someone had a nuclear warhead in his backyard being used to hang clothes that the military would do *something* about it.
I would be embarrassed to resort to "the nuke argument" in a gun debate, as should you. I think the discussion would go much smoother without using that 'argument'.
|
On May 10 2013 03:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Wrong. Under current laws, legal gun owners can legally give criminals firearms by claiming ignorance. This is the main case that the law addresses. I would suggest you go test this assertion out and see how well it works out for you when you're arrested and thrown in jail.
To sink to the level of debate you have just presented;
Nuh-uh.
|
On May 10 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 10 2013 00:56 -VapidSlug- wrote:
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns. Yes, you are misunderstanding, because you literally didn't reply to ANY part of my point. It isn't about the purpose of the invention; it's about what the tool is effectively used for. It doesn't matter if you, through some convoluted way, rig a nuke to hold up your clothes. There are countless other tools that are more efficient at that task and the only thing that a nuke IS good at is killing people. This is true for the first few nukes. Most nukes were made as a deterrent and are not, shall we say, "intended for combat." What a nuke is specifically good at is applying heavy short term and long term damage to an area for little cost of time or execution expenditure. That it kills people is secondary to the "level a city" portion of its explosion. Biological weapons are specifically aimed at killing people, bombs are made at destroying property to shatter moral (and apply apply heavy casualties as well, but the moral is the big part). Nukes changed the dynamic because the boom was so big it transformed bombs from being a device to break the people's will and transformed it into a killing device that breaks the people's world. TLDR: Nukes were intentionally made to deter violence while being specifically designed to destroy property--that it is good at killing people is secondary. Now, I would hope that if someone had a nuclear warhead in his backyard being used to hang clothes that the military would do *something* about it.
We can sit here and be obnoxious armchair philosophers about this topic, but the real world (and the political world) doesn't care about these distinguishing factors.
"Destroying property on a mass scale" vs. "killing people" is a completely irrelevant difference when it comes to regulating access to an item, especially because "destroying property" invariably includes killing lots and lots of people.
The point is that y'all need to stop with all of this obnoxious arguing over semantics that have zero relevance to the fact that there is a massive societal difference between a gun, a car, and alcohol, with a gun being far more dangerous than the other two objects, and this danger being an intrinsic part of what the item is.
|
On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 09 2013 12:57 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:The rate of gun-related murders has dropped by almost half in the U.S. since the early 1990s, even though more than eight of 10 Americans say otherwise, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.
The report, released amid a nationwide debate over whether to enact new measures to curb firearms violence, shows that gun- related killings peaked in 1993 at seven deaths per 100,000 Americans before descending rapidly to 3.8 deaths per 100,000 by 2000. By 2010, Pew found, the rate had fallen to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people.
Yet a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say gun crime is higher than it was in 1993, while 26 percent say it’s the same, according to the survey by the Washington-based group. Just 12 percent told Pew the rate was lower.
“Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago,” the study said.
The mass shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in December boosted support for gun-control legislation, according to another Pew poll, taken in January. SourceJust another example of how media attention manipulates public perception. Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/ On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:
[quote]
Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of.
Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of. Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights. Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform. Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand. If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc. I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people. Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault. On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote:On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
I don't really get the comparison to alcohol. The reason people are worried about guns isn't because people accidentally shoot themselves, but because they can be construed as a threat to other people and because they affect the potency of violence by way of being accessible. In the case of alcohol, liver disease only affects the person who drinks the alcohol, not others. Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal.
If we really want to get into it, I'd argue that excessive intake of alcohol is immoral anyhow, but it doesn't require legal measures because, ultimately, alcohol abuse only kills the abuser; any interpersonal affects resulting from alcohol abuse (assault, sexual assault, drunk driving, etc) are already illegal. And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol. Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets. Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states. Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income. Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. "This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." How's that for nonsense? First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check. 2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!) 3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right? But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun! I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to. I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it. Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol.
You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads.
I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.
On May 10 2013 03:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 03:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 10 2013 00:56 -VapidSlug- wrote:
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns. Yes, you are misunderstanding, because you literally didn't reply to ANY part of my point. It isn't about the purpose of the invention; it's about what the tool is effectively used for. It doesn't matter if you, through some convoluted way, rig a nuke to hold up your clothes. There are countless other tools that are more efficient at that task and the only thing that a nuke IS good at is killing people. This is true for the first few nukes. Most nukes were made as a deterrent and are not, shall we say, "intended for combat." What a nuke is specifically good at is applying heavy short term and long term damage to an area for little cost of time or execution expenditure. That it kills people is secondary to the "level a city" portion of its explosion. Biological weapons are specifically aimed at killing people, bombs are made at destroying property to shatter moral (and apply apply heavy casualties as well, but the moral is the big part). Nukes changed the dynamic because the boom was so big it transformed bombs from being a device to break the people's will and transformed it into a killing device that breaks the people's world. TLDR: Nukes were intentionally made to deter violence while being specifically designed to destroy property--that it is good at killing people is secondary. Now, I would hope that if someone had a nuclear warhead in his backyard being used to hang clothes that the military would do *something* about it. We can sit here and be obnoxious armchair philosophers about this topic, but the real world (and the political world) doesn't care about these distinguishing factors. "Destroying property on a mass scale" vs. "killing people" is a completely irrelevant difference when it comes to regulating access to an item, especially because "destroying property" invariably includes killing lots and lots of people. The point is that y'all need to stop with all of this obnoxious arguing over semantics that have zero relevance to the fact that there is a massive societal difference between a gun, a car, and alcohol, with a gun being far more dangerous than the other two objects, and this danger being an intrinsic part of what the item is.
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
|
On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 09 2013 12:57 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:[quote] SourceJust another example of how media attention manipulates public perception. Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/ [quote] Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of. Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights. Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform. Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand. If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc. I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people. Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault. On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol.
Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets. Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states. Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income. Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. "This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." How's that for nonsense? First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check. 2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!) 3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right? But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun! I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to. I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it. Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol. You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads. I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.
You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property?
|
On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights.
Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform.
[quote]
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc. I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people. Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault. On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets.
Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states. Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income. Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. "This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." How's that for nonsense? First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check. 2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!) 3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right? But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun! I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to. I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it. Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol. You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads. I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business. You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property?
All you need is the previous owner to sign over the title and a notary.
edit; a little research shows most states don't even require a notary.
|
On May 10 2013 03:48 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people.
Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault.
[quote]
Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income. Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. "This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." How's that for nonsense? First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check. 2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!) 3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right? But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun! I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to. I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it. Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol. You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads. I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business. You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property? All you need is the previous owner to sign over the title and a notary.
Yes, that's my point, the transaction requires a third party government affiliate to guarantee the terms and chain of custody, which is what we're suggesting is preferable insofar as private firearm transactions are concerned.
|
On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights.
Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform.
[quote]
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc. I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people. Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault. On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets.
Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states. Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income. Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. "This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." How's that for nonsense? First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check. 2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!) 3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right? But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun! I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to. I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it. Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol. You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads. I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business. You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property?
Title transfers aren't regulation, they're private property protection. A junker you buy to use on your private property wouldn't have a title and wouldn't need to be registered. At least at the state or federal level, as always local laws may vary.
|
On May 10 2013 03:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:48 heliusx wrote:On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. "This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." How's that for nonsense? First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check. 2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!) 3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right? But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun! I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to. I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it. Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol. You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads. I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business. You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property? All you need is the previous owner to sign over the title and a notary. Yes, that's my point, the transaction requires a third party government affiliate to guarantee the terms and chain of custody, which is what we're suggesting is preferable insofar as private firearm transactions are concerned.
Fair enough. I misunderstood and assumed you thought dmv registration was required.
|
On May 10 2013 03:52 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people.
Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault.
[quote]
Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income. Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. "This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." How's that for nonsense? First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check. 2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!) 3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right? But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun! I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to. I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it. Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol. You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads. I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business. You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property? Title transfers aren't regulation, they're private property protection. A junker you buy to use on your private property wouldn't have a title and wouldn't need to be registered. At least at the state or federal level, as always local laws may vary.
While hypothetically you could buy a junker and not get a title transfer and use it on your private property, fact is in the eyes of the law it's not actually under your ownership without a title and it could be taken from you by the title owner.
|
But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.
I hope not ...
The state should regulate and build a legal frame work on how people can interact.
For example if your neighbor decides to build a nuclear waste dump next to your house without any rules regulations and laws, would you really like that ?
|
On May 10 2013 03:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 03:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 10 2013 00:56 -VapidSlug- wrote:
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns. Yes, you are misunderstanding, because you literally didn't reply to ANY part of my point. It isn't about the purpose of the invention; it's about what the tool is effectively used for. It doesn't matter if you, through some convoluted way, rig a nuke to hold up your clothes. There are countless other tools that are more efficient at that task and the only thing that a nuke IS good at is killing people. This is true for the first few nukes. Most nukes were made as a deterrent and are not, shall we say, "intended for combat." What a nuke is specifically good at is applying heavy short term and long term damage to an area for little cost of time or execution expenditure. That it kills people is secondary to the "level a city" portion of its explosion. Biological weapons are specifically aimed at killing people, bombs are made at destroying property to shatter moral (and apply apply heavy casualties as well, but the moral is the big part). Nukes changed the dynamic because the boom was so big it transformed bombs from being a device to break the people's will and transformed it into a killing device that breaks the people's world. TLDR: Nukes were intentionally made to deter violence while being specifically designed to destroy property--that it is good at killing people is secondary. Now, I would hope that if someone had a nuclear warhead in his backyard being used to hang clothes that the military would do *something* about it. We can sit here and be obnoxious armchair philosophers about this topic, but the real world (and the political world) doesn't care about these distinguishing factors. "Destroying property on a mass scale" vs. "killing people" is a completely irrelevant difference when it comes to regulating access to an item, especially because "destroying property" invariably includes killing lots and lots of people. The point is that y'all need to stop with all of this obnoxious arguing over semantics that have zero relevance to the fact that there is a massive societal difference between a gun, a car, and alcohol, with a gun being far more dangerous than the other two objects, and this danger being an intrinsic part of what the item is.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your stance.
I was mostly pointing out that nukes are not made specifically to kill people--but even so, it is still heavily regulated. If Iran and North Korea can get flack as a country for even testing nuclear capability, then joe schmoe hanging laundry should be just as scrutinized for fiddling with nuclear weapons.
Not because nukes were designed to kill people--but because it's a fucking nuke and not some fire cracker you pop at new years. Dangerous weapons are dangerous for a reason. Used properly and no one gets hurt--albeit if it's used properly. If the US is so dangerous and filled with so much "whatever" that you need a gun to stay safe--do you really want to make it easy for those "whatevers" to also get guns?
|
On May 10 2013 03:22 heliusx wrote:
current law allows you to transfer a gun to a criminal and just pretend to be ignorant. if it became illegal to sell a gun to someone without a background check plenty of people would think twice since they would now be breaking the law.
I think a lot of people are VERY ignorant about the bureaucratic laws governing firearm purchases--this includes you. Honestly, if I was allowed to conduct a background check before I sold one out of my collection, I would. But the law actually forbids it. It is illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a felon, but you have to trust the purchaser's word. The way the FFL-related laws are written, at the moment, actually forbids private sellers from performing background checks. Why don't we first try removing illogical laws from the books? Why don't we remove the FFL requirement and just allow everyone who sells a firearm to perform a check. I would even do it for a small fee as I would just add that cost to the firearm I am selling.
|
On May 10 2013 03:54 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:52 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. "This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." How's that for nonsense? First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check. 2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!) 3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right? But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun! I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to. I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it. Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol. You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads. I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business. You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property? Title transfers aren't regulation, they're private property protection. A junker you buy to use on your private property wouldn't have a title and wouldn't need to be registered. At least at the state or federal level, as always local laws may vary. While hypothetically you could buy a junker and not get a title transfer and use it on your private property, fact is in the eyes of the law it's not actually under your ownership without a title and it could be taken from you by the title owner.
I fully admit I'm no expert, but some research seems to show that in most cases you only get into problems if you try to take the vehicle out of state. Most states don't seem to care within their borders.
On May 10 2013 03:57 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:22 heliusx wrote:
current law allows you to transfer a gun to a criminal and just pretend to be ignorant. if it became illegal to sell a gun to someone without a background check plenty of people would think twice since they would now be breaking the law. I think a lot of people are VERY ignorant about the bureaucratic laws governing firearm purchases--this includes you. Honestly, if I was allowed to conduct a background check before I sold one out of my collection, I would. But the law actually forbids it. It is illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a felon, but you have to trust the purchaser's word. The way the FFL-related laws are written, at the moment, actually forbids private sellers from performing background checks. Why don't we first try removing illogical laws from the books? Why don't we remove the FFL requirement and just allow everyone who sells a firearm to perform a check. I would even do it for a small fee as I would just add that cost to the firearm I am selling.
As long as they don't set some ridiculous fee that amounts to a ban, and as long as the check just returns a yes/no answer, so as to not violate the purchaser's privacy, I would agree, I'd probably be ok with that.
Before anyone jumps on me for flip-flopping, I've been on the fence about background checks for about 150 pages.
|
On May 10 2013 03:52 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people.
Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault.
[quote]
Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income. Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. "This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." How's that for nonsense? First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check. 2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!) 3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right? But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun! I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to. I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it. Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol. You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads. I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business. You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property? Title transfers aren't regulation, they're private property protection. A junker you buy to use on your private property wouldn't have a title and wouldn't need to be registered. At least at the state or federal level, as always local laws may vary.
If you do not own the title to said junker, than you cannot legally prove ownership, therefore opening yourself up to future legal problems in proving such a thing when the previous owner is suddenly strapped for cash and aware of your stupidity. It is in the government's and individual's interest to establish a baseline means of proving ownership, and it is along this vein that said system makes sense for guns. If you don't want to call it regulation, that's fine, the point is that the current state of private firearm sales make proving chain of custody rather difficult; add in a notary gun title requirement and suddenly the lines of ownership are much clearer.
|
More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.
If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Hell, even alcohol is more regulated than guns in most states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
