|
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 June 13 2016 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 11:55 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason) think about how absurdly dangerous it is driving a car at freeway speeds, yet no one hesitates to do it even with small children in the car. Which is why we're all grateful that the automobile industry lobby never came around to the idea that it would be against freedom to force people to have a license before they are allowed to drive, by the way.
that's irrelevant to the fact that more people still die as a result from cars than die from firearms (aside from suicide).
|
On June 13 2016 12:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 11:59 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 11:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 11:45 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 11:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 11:23 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 11:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2016 10:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Maybe allowing millions of immigrants from nations where homosexuality is illegal and in many punishable by death is not a good idea? Both his parents were from Afghanistan and many at his mosque were from the middle east and likely carried those customs and beliefs with them.
Time to wake up. The shooter was born in a nation where homosexuality was illegal. But it wasn't anywhere near the Middle East, and certainly wasn't a muslim country. The US only made gay marriage made legal last year in 2015, homosexuality legal in 2003, and it's one of the two first world nations that still have the death penalty. Yeah right the United State is comparable in how they have treated gays in the past 30 years to the way Saudia Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc have treated gays. Yea Can we stop with this ridiculous notion that the U.S. is as oppressive as the Middle East? It was when your grandparents were growing up. It was better when your parents were growing up, but still not very nice. And those people and attitudes don't just go away because laws get changed. Maybe we need to stop this ridiculous notion that hateful beliefs and customs can't be fostered from within the US? Anyone can have hateful customs or beliefs anywhere, I don't disagree with that. However, I feel confident in saying that the level of fear that homosexuals fear in most Islam states has never been at the same level at any point in America. Gays are executed there and thrown off roof tops. Please source that happening the U.S in recent history. I am not speaking of individual actions, but actions performed by government institutions. There is prejudice against gays in almost every country, I don't disagree with that. What I am saying is the degree of hatred is no where near comparable to the Middle East. It is such barbarism that reminds me closely of the Spanish Inquisition. 40s and 50s homosexuality was treated as a mental illness, and were subject to all the lovely "treatments" that mid-century quack medicine was known for: castration, electro-shock therapy, lobotomies, etc. And homosexuals were hunted by police much like child predators are today. Not limited to the US, but since that's the topic at hand. So you are comparing 60-70 years ago to today? It is still not comparable even then. Being treated as a mental illness compared to being executed? The western world including the U.S. has modernized tremendously in the past century. It is time for the Middle East to catch up, however, they have shown a tenacity to cling to their barbaric beliefs. They have refused to progress with the rest of us and have shown absolutely no signs to assimilate and reform. And the US clings to its barbaric beliefs for decades longer than most of the western world. You aren't the gold standard. In most cases the US has the slowest progressive movement among first world nations. And third world nations don't get a pass because they're third world, but there is an expectation and understanding that poorer countries will inevitably be slower to give up on culture and beliefs.
Most of that is true but my orginal point still stands. They are not comparable. Not even close. Also, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are on the fringe of being considered 3rd world if at all.
|
On June 13 2016 11:00 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 10:30 Sermokala wrote:On June 13 2016 10:15 thePunGun wrote:On June 13 2016 09:54 Sermokala wrote:On June 13 2016 09:47 thePunGun wrote:bureaucrats in Washington DC would be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights without trial or even a judges look at it How? Quite frankly that's an assumption disguised as an argument to win over gun owners, who fear for their legal right to own one. As long as your not on a potential terrorist list, you can keep your guns and potential terrorists won't! You won't get on that list just for laughs and giggles, they need proper evidence for that (like a summer vacation to Syria/Iraq or Afghanistan). I don't see how anyone in their right mind can be against that! But who decides whos a potential terrorist now and whos not? Or is it the restriction of being able to purchase a weapon being your second amendment rights being taken away that you are arguing about? It doesn't matter how much evidence you or I think may be enough its up to a judge to decide if its enough to take away your rights. Thats why people with felons or other crimes can take away your second amendment rights without a problem. The Orlando shooter wasn't even on that list, because the FBI didn't have enough evidence. Even though they interviewed him in 2! terror-related cases...What about other cases in Heston ,Kansas for example a felon illegaly bought a gun at a gunshow goes on a shootingspree, kills 3 people and wounds 15 others, this February. You think that's okay? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the second amendment, as long as you're a law-abiding citizen.... But there are some sick bastards out there, who just don't deserve the right to protect themselves with a gun as long as they endanger others! I'm entirely for closeing the gun show loophole and I've belived that they've always been fairly shady places. The point is that a comprehensive background check system is incredibly hard to imagine without loseing common concencious about it. Ie how the checks are recorded, where the checks go to be checked against, what databases's are used to decide who doesn't pass it. To quote JFK in his famous moon speech: " [..]we do[..] things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard[..]"  I don't think I'm qualified to propose a background check system... All I know is it should be a nation-wide system, there is no point in giving states the freedom to choose. We know, how " well" that works in other cases..
FFL's are all ready nation-wide policy. If you're talking database with names, #'s and type of guns, etc. then that's a non-starter. Similarly, something tells me that you wouldn't be for nation-wide concealed carry reciprocity, eh. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Nationalizing shit is almost never the answer in a country as diverse as ours. There's a reason Switzerland is one of the best places to live on Earth and their canton decentralization is a good part of that (There's always that one person so let me spell the analogy out Canton = US States / Federalism).
|
On June 13 2016 12:39 Hier wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 12:34 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 12:22 Hier wrote:On June 13 2016 12:11 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
If anyone thinks they can stand up to the USA with some guns they are deluded. If the guy in charge was a despotic tyrannical maniac then sorry guys, he's got armed drones, tanks, huge bombs etc.
 it's not necessarily about fighting an oppressive government in some 1984 scenario. it's about the fact that firearms are the greatest equalizer and are an effective LAST MEASURE against coercion (again, not necessarily against a fantastical totalitarian big brother). I want the use of biological weapons to be legal. It is the greatest equalizer and an effective last measure against coercion. It is my right as a citizen to be able to defend myself using biological weapons against any hypothetical attack. we really gonna go down the slippery slope argument? i'll take a mini nuke pls. like fallout. Well, you can either discuss the issue purely from a philosophical point of view, or land back to reality and talk about real pros and cons that are relevant today. Let us know.
i mean. firearms are a reality. and the reality is gun violence outside of drugs/gang related gun violence is not as prevalent as you think.
so i mean, you can try to be snarky and then talk about philosophical viewpoints as a backpedal but thus far i think i've contributed more positive discussion than you have (i've only read the last few pages of this thread but let me know if i'm wrong). and if you think the concept of self-defense is just philosophical meandering then i don't know what to tell you to convince you otherwise, honestly.
|
On June 13 2016 12:40 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2016 11:55 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason) think about how absurdly dangerous it is driving a car at freeway speeds, yet no one hesitates to do it even with small children in the car. Which is why we're all grateful that the automobile industry lobby never came around to the idea that it would be against freedom to force people to have a license before they are allowed to drive, by the way. that's irrelevant to the fact that more people still die as a result from cars than die from firearms (aside from suicide).
Do you think that fact could somehow be related to frequency of use?
Aside from this obvious "Please don't pretend we're idiots", I'm sure you're familiar with the many ways you can get your driving license revoked in the US. Why aren't you critical of those based on the power that a person feels when driving?
|
On June 13 2016 12:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 12:40 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2016 11:55 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason) think about how absurdly dangerous it is driving a car at freeway speeds, yet no one hesitates to do it even with small children in the car. Which is why we're all grateful that the automobile industry lobby never came around to the idea that it would be against freedom to force people to have a license before they are allowed to drive, by the way. that's irrelevant to the fact that more people still die as a result from cars than die from firearms (aside from suicide). Do you think that fact could somehow be related to frequency of use?
i don't see how this is relevant. the context in which that was written is simply to demonstrate the concept that we are all OK with people dying as long as we think it's worth it (as cold as that sounds), resulting in the propagation of "____ culture". if you accept that, then you have to accept that many people disagree with your idea of what's "worth it" when it comes to firearm ownership.
this way we can start talking about firearms in the context of firearms and the regulation thereof, instead of falling into the trap of trying to draw analogies between the regulation of two entirely different things.
per your edit, i don't know what "power" you are referring to when you're talking about driving.
|
That's my bad, you were talking about comfort, not power. I just found it interesting that you thought the comfort of driving a car, comparable to the comfort of owning a gun, was a justification for lenient gun regulation when you (presumably) don't even think it's a justification for lenient driving regulation.
As for the idea that America is okay with the price for its gun culture, I'll come around to it once there is less than 80%+ support for harsher gun regulation in America. Until then... Sounds like you're on shaky ground.
|
On June 13 2016 13:25 Nebuchad wrote:
That's my bad, you were talking about comfort, not power. I just found it interesting that you thought the comfort of driving a car, comparable to the comfort of owning a gun, was a justification for lenient gun regulation when you (presumably) don't even think it's a justification for lenient driving regulation.
As for the idea that America is okay with the price for its gun culture, I'll come around to it once there is less than 80%+ support for harsher gun regulation in America. Until then... Sounds like you're on shaky ground.
i think we agree here. i was simply explaining the misuse of "gun culture" being as a dirty or pejorative term when it really just means "i'm comfortable around guns because (like cars) i've seen them being used legally and safely more than i have otherwise."
the only reason i find myself in threads like this whenever something like this happens is because a lot of people who are misinformed about firearms post knee jerk reactions and propagate the idea that guns are this all-terrible thing which result in ludicrous regulations like the ones i mentioned earlier:
for example, it's easy to be outraged that the shooter in orlando was able to still own firearms even though he was suspected to sympathize with ISIS. but is that really a reason to take away his right as ordained (they are rights as they stand now) by one of the most fundamental documents in us history?
if we take away his rights based on his sympathy for political / religious extremism, shouldn't we also bar KKK, neo-nazis, black power, etc. supporters from owning weapons as well (and if we do who decides who gets their rights revoked)?
i am in favor of sensible (sensible is obviously relative here) regulation of firearms. the problem is unless education takes precedent over an appeal to emotion and outrage, i'm afraid that's never really going to happen.
|
Americans only support gun regulations that will do close to nothing to reduce the number of gun homicides and only so long as they don't interfere with their ability to own firearms. Like universal background checks. They don't support the types of gun control that would actually make a big difference like widespread gun bans and strict restrictions on carry. As an example, a ban on handguns except for law enforcement was 27 for 72 against according to Gallup. Handguns account for 80% of gun homicides.
Even the assault weapon ban has flipped to more opposed than support. And maybe it will flip back to being slightly favored after this shooting in Orlando and Clinton calling for the ban. But all rifles, not just assault rifles, account for a measly 3% of gun homicides according to FBI data.
|
I have real trouble going into this seriously because I don't believe for a second that the reason why you don't have better gun regulations is because it's hard to put in place or because it's hard to find the right boundaries.
Of course it's hard, nobody thinks it's easy. Of course you have to discuss where the boundaries are. But instead of dealing with this hard situation and searching for those boundaries, instead of having those debates that you should be having, your country is stuck in a loop discussing what the good guys with a gun are doing and what would happen under too much gun regulation.
This happens because of propaganda and because your politicians have zero issue with voting against the will of a crushing majority of America. And I'd be willing to bet that those are much more important factors when it comes to why you don't have sensible gun regulation in America than a few people overreacting after a mass shooting. I think you should direct your efforts against those factors first if you're really for sensible regulation of firearms. And please be assured that I don't think it's an easy fight either. It's just the right one.
|
On June 13 2016 14:01 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Americans only support gun regulations that will do close to nothing to reduce the number of gun homicides and only so long as they don't interfere with their ability to own firearms. Like universal background checks. They don't support the types of gun control that would actually make a big difference like widespread gun bans and strict restrictions on carry. As an example, a ban on handguns except for law enforcement was 27 for 72 against according to Gallup. Handguns account for 80% of gun homicides.
Even the assault weapon ban has flipped to more opposed than support. And maybe it will flip back to being slightly favored after this shooting in Orlando and Clinton calling for the ban. But all rifles, not just assault rifles, account for a measly 3% of gun homicides according to FBI data.
Why are you so sure banning guns is the solution? Take the guns away from ALL citizens because of one crime? Under that logic we might as well ban ALL muslims. You think a person who does something like this cannot find a solution to stricter gun regulations?
Do you think the shooter would have gotten away with 50 kill in a redneck bar at Texas or a rap bar in detroit?
How did strict gun laws work out in france at stoping terrorism?
|
On June 13 2016 12:50 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 12:39 Hier wrote:On June 13 2016 12:34 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 12:22 Hier wrote:On June 13 2016 12:11 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
If anyone thinks they can stand up to the USA with some guns they are deluded. If the guy in charge was a despotic tyrannical maniac then sorry guys, he's got armed drones, tanks, huge bombs etc.
it's not necessarily about fighting an oppressive government in some 1984 scenario. it's about the fact that firearms are the greatest equalizer and are an effective LAST MEASURE against coercion (again, not necessarily against a fantastical totalitarian big brother). I want the use of biological weapons to be legal. It is the greatest equalizer and an effective last measure against coercion. It is my right as a citizen to be able to defend myself using biological weapons against any hypothetical attack. we really gonna go down the slippery slope argument? i'll take a mini nuke pls. like fallout. Well, you can either discuss the issue purely from a philosophical point of view, or land back to reality and talk about real pros and cons that are relevant today. Let us know. i mean. firearms are a reality. and the reality is gun violence outside of drugs/gang related gun violence is not as prevalent as you think. so i mean, you can try to be snarky and then talk about philosophical viewpoints as a backpedal but thus far i think i've contributed more positive discussion than you have (i've only read the last few pages of this thread but let me know if i'm wrong). and if you think the concept of self-defense is just philosophical meandering then i don't know what to tell you to convince you otherwise, honestly.
I wouldn't qualify your talk of equalizers as a particularly positive contribution; you didn't seem to understand my original response... nothing to do with Fallout. You propose a hypothetical threat, against which guns would be a last measure, yet say gun violence is not prevalent (is it against the commies? aliens?). Thus the only thing that makes sense to me, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, is that the reason Americans are so obsessed with guns is because of the "Yeehaw!" culture, as in they are primarily a tool of entertainment, and should not be painted to serve some sort of practical purpose. Micronesia disagreed with me, yet went on to describe exactly what I suggested.
---
I took a few minutes to think about it after writing the previous paragraph, and perhaps I've been going about it all wrong.
As I understand it there are two camps to the role of guns - the result vs the method. On one hand decreasing the prevalence of guns across the country would likely have a net decrease in total combined annual deaths, as has been shown (the other option is a net increase, and if you believe that this entire exercise falls apart); the result. On the other hand some people would want to have access to a powerful weapon, thus giving them more control over their fate, despite that, on average, the overall chance of them dying prematurely goes up slightly; the method. It's statistics vs individuality, rate of occurrence vs self-determination.
So in the end, leave the gun laws as they are. Having a very slightly higher mortality rate is probably worth it if a large fraction of the population are kept happy.
|
On June 13 2016 14:08 Hier wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 12:50 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 12:39 Hier wrote:On June 13 2016 12:34 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 12:22 Hier wrote:On June 13 2016 12:11 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 07:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
If anyone thinks they can stand up to the USA with some guns they are deluded. If the guy in charge was a despotic tyrannical maniac then sorry guys, he's got armed drones, tanks, huge bombs etc.
it's not necessarily about fighting an oppressive government in some 1984 scenario. it's about the fact that firearms are the greatest equalizer and are an effective LAST MEASURE against coercion (again, not necessarily against a fantastical totalitarian big brother). I want the use of biological weapons to be legal. It is the greatest equalizer and an effective last measure against coercion. It is my right as a citizen to be able to defend myself using biological weapons against any hypothetical attack. we really gonna go down the slippery slope argument? i'll take a mini nuke pls. like fallout. Well, you can either discuss the issue purely from a philosophical point of view, or land back to reality and talk about real pros and cons that are relevant today. Let us know. i mean. firearms are a reality. and the reality is gun violence outside of drugs/gang related gun violence is not as prevalent as you think. so i mean, you can try to be snarky and then talk about philosophical viewpoints as a backpedal but thus far i think i've contributed more positive discussion than you have (i've only read the last few pages of this thread but let me know if i'm wrong). and if you think the concept of self-defense is just philosophical meandering then i don't know what to tell you to convince you otherwise, honestly. I wouldn't qualify your talk of equalizers as a particularly positive contribution; you didn't seem to understand my original response... nothing to do with Fallout. You propose a hypothetical threat, against which guns would be a last measure, yet say gun violence is not prevalent (is it against the commies? aliens?). Thus the only thing that makes sense to me, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, is that the reason Americans are so obsessed with guns is because of the "Yeehaw!" culture, as in they are primarily a tool of entertainment, and should not be painted to serve some sort of practical purpose. Micronesia disagreed with me, yet went on to describe exactly what I suggested. --- I took a few minutes to think about it after writing the previous paragraph, and perhaps I've been going about it all wrong. As I understand it there are two camps to the role of guns - the result vs the method. On one hand decreasing the prevalence of guns across the country would likely have a net decrease in total combined annual deaths, as has been shown (the other option is a net increase, and if you believe that this entire exercise falls apart); the result. On the other hand some people would want to have access to a powerful weapon, thus giving them more control over their fate, despite that, on average, the overall chance of them dying prematurely goes up slightly; the method. It's statistics vs individuality, rate of occurrence vs self-determination. So in the end, leave the gun laws as they are. Having a very slightly higher mortality rate is probably worth it if a large fraction of the population are kept happy.
I would dispute the notion that stricter gun control = less deaths. Less guns circulating = stricter gun control could also be debated.
I was simply pissed that the president couldn't blame Islamic Terrorism, you cannot say anything from this shooting about Islam, but ALL guns are the problem because of one incident.
In this case, the culprit should be blamed (Radical Islamic Terrorism).
For crimes in general, I think legalizing drugs is in orders of magnitudes more important than any gun regulation could ever be.
|
On June 13 2016 14:05 Nebuchad wrote:
I have real trouble going into this seriously because I don't believe for a second that the reason why you don't have better gun regulations is because it's hard to put in place or because it's hard to find the right boundaries.
Of course it's hard, nobody thinks it's easy. Of course you have to discuss where the boundaries are. But instead of dealing with this hard situation and searching for those boundaries, instead of having those debates that you should be having, your country is stuck in a loop discussing what the good guys with a gun are doing and what would happen under too much gun regulation.
This happens because of propaganda and because your politicians have zero issue with voting against the will of a crushing majority of America. And I'd be willing to bet that those are much more important factors when it comes to why you don't have sensible gun regulation in America than a few people overreacting after a mass shooting. I think you should direct your efforts against those factors first if you're really for sensible regulation of firearms. And please be assured that I don't think it's an easy fight either. It's just the right one.
i'm not sure if this is directed at me or nova but i will try to shine some light on the topic in either case. nova is right in saying that a majority of gun violence is actually committed with handguns, yet whenever something like this ends up on the news there's huge public outcry against "assault weapons" while the actual problem (the handguns) does not get addressed.
take a look at the proposed legislation that i linked, these were fairly recent. if you take some time to look at those and learn about how that impacts firearm ownership you will realize they do almost absolutely nothing to curtail gun violence. then think about the fact that these are supported by diane feinstein, one of the most vocal and arguably the most prolific figure in the fight for more firearm regulation. those pieces of legislation will do almost nothing to stop a majority of gun crime, yet this is what they are spending time trying to pass, and this is the rhetoric that is repeated over and over again every time a publicized mass shooting occurs.
so i do think it is a problem when our legislators know nothing about the things they are trying to pass regulations for (the internet comes to mind here) and it is at least a major hurdle in finding the correct compromise that will make most people happy.
it's like if people wanted to pass regulations to try and throttle all p2p traffic on the web to deter piracy and everyone supported it because they have no idea what the actual affects / implications are (i apologize in advance for the potential analogy train running off a cliff).
in order to understand the frustration of firearms owners you have to understand the affect of those pieces of legislation.
1. microstamping shell casings is moot when the mechanism doing the stamping can be filed off. not to mention an easy way around this is to simply load your own rounds.
2. bullet buttons prevent ease of reload by requiring a tool to discharge a "fixed" magazine. i consider this to actually be more dangerous as it requires the use of both hands and awkward positioning to use it properly and it is absolutely a non-issue to work around if you don't care about staying legal.
3. .50 bmg is banned because people were getting shot with .50 bmg all the time?
4. what constitutes an assault weapon are ergonomic / cosmetic modifications. a bayonet mount? grenade launcher mount? adjustable stock? barrel shrouds? weight limitations? how does any of this deter gun violence?
5. any high velocity intermediate round can penetrate light armor and even certain thicknesses of mild steel. calling ss109 specifically armor penetrating / piercing demonstrates lack of understanding the ballistics of 5.56x45 (of which i'm no expert).
|
I had to look up an AR 15 on google, it looks like a pretty advanced weapon to me. How can someone on the FBI watchlist with suspected ties to IS buy that thing? I suppose the FBI watchlist is just for their own use, and not shared with gun sellers. That would be a decent starting point.
|
United States43350 Posts
On June 13 2016 16:09 Laurens wrote:
I had to look up an AR 15 on google, it looks like a pretty advanced weapon to me. How can someone on the FBI watchlist with suspected ties to IS buy that thing? I suppose the FBI watchlist is just for their own use, and not shared with gun sellers. That would be a decent starting point.
A private unaccountable list that you can be placed on for any reason and can't be taken off of very easily which is used to deny people their second amendment rights? There are issues with that. You can argue whether or not gun rights should be rights but given that gun rights presently are rights what I don't think you can do is allow the unaccountable stripping of them from individuals. For people who are opposed to access to guns it's not ideal but if you're not willing to change the fundamentals such as the existence of the second amendment then you can't undermine it without causing some problems.
|
On June 13 2016 16:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 16:09 Laurens wrote:
I had to look up an AR 15 on google, it looks like a pretty advanced weapon to me. How can someone on the FBI watchlist with suspected ties to IS buy that thing? I suppose the FBI watchlist is just for their own use, and not shared with gun sellers. That would be a decent starting point. A private unaccountable list that you can be placed on for any reason and can't be taken off of very easily which is used to deny people their second amendment rights? There are issues with that. You can argue whether or not gun rights should be rights but given that gun rights presently are rights what I don't think you can do is allow the unaccountable stripping of them from individuals. For people who are opposed to access to guns it's not ideal but if you're not willing to change the fundamentals such as the existence of the second amendment then you can't undermine it without causing some problems.
Okay, I guess the alternative is to make gun sellers log whoever buys guns, and give the FBI access to those logs? That way everyone can still buy, and if someone on the list buys a gun the FBI can watch them more closely or w/e. Then the second amendment rights are not denied as far as I can see.
Of course there are various privacy issues there, but when it comes to guns I would prefer security over privacy 
|
On June 13 2016 16:46 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 16:25 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2016 16:09 Laurens wrote:
I had to look up an AR 15 on google, it looks like a pretty advanced weapon to me. How can someone on the FBI watchlist with suspected ties to IS buy that thing? I suppose the FBI watchlist is just for their own use, and not shared with gun sellers. That would be a decent starting point. A private unaccountable list that you can be placed on for any reason and can't be taken off of very easily which is used to deny people their second amendment rights? There are issues with that. You can argue whether or not gun rights should be rights but given that gun rights presently are rights what I don't think you can do is allow the unaccountable stripping of them from individuals. For people who are opposed to access to guns it's not ideal but if you're not willing to change the fundamentals such as the existence of the second amendment then you can't undermine it without causing some problems. Okay, I guess the alternative is to make gun sellers log whoever buys guns, and give the FBI access to those logs? That way everyone can still buy, and if someone on the list buys a gun the FBI can watch them more closely or w/e. Then the second amendment rights are not denied as far as I can see. Of course there are various privacy issues there, but when it comes to guns I would prefer security over privacy
Doesn't need to be a "log" so much as if you get a background check it includes things like watch lists, and it doesn't necessarily deny them (unless we implement a system like I'm suggesting) just flag the agency saying "hey this person on your watch list just bought 3 ar-15's" or whatever. Then whichever agencies watchlist was pinged can choose to follow up or not.
Probably still not perfect but better than what we have now.
|
Guns in the US are pretty much there to stay. There are already so many and people will trade them privately whether it's allowed or not, because that's how humans work. People that want guns can get it from friends that got it from other friends and - unless you have police search every house and shed in the entire US - there is nothing anyone can do about it.
People intending on using guns for illegal purposes will also not buy their guns through stores, they will buy stolen guns and such, so a gun log won't stop criminals or crazies.
While I'm absolutely pro gun control and would love to see all guns gone, it's just far too late to be viable in the US. The only options are "everyone has a gun" or "many people have a gun". Anyone who is against guns needs to have a good solution on dealing with the millions of existing firearms first, a plan that doesn't rely on people being nice and law abiding like "let's ask everyone to turn in their guns or we arrest them for gun possession on the unlikely chance that we ever find out".
The US policy on guns is pretty much locked in place by it's history.
|
On June 13 2016 12:40 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2016 11:55 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason) think about how absurdly dangerous it is driving a car at freeway speeds, yet no one hesitates to do it even with small children in the car. Which is why we're all grateful that the automobile industry lobby never came around to the idea that it would be against freedom to force people to have a license before they are allowed to drive, by the way. that's irrelevant to the fact that more people still die as a result from cars than die from firearms (aside from suicide).
You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
