|
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 March 01 2012 19:53 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 19:45 Defacer wrote:On March 01 2012 19:39 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 19:23 bittman wrote:
Since one the whole ownership of a gun strikes me as odd I've never looked into laws around the world for it, so honest question:
How are guns and weapons policed in America? If I remember right you need a gun licence yes? What criteria is required for that? Each State has its own gun laws. Some are widely accepted and are acknowledged from one state to another, while other states require you to follow their specific gun laws when entering their state, and won't recognize the laws of other states. And some cities like New York City have complete bans for non-law enforcement (of course, they even ban pepper spray). As far as licenses, some states do require licenses to purchase and own, while others simply require a background check. Concealed carry permits are different though...If you want to be able to carry under your jacket or behind your belt you have to have special permit for that. Some states that is easy to obtain, others only possible if you are in law enforcement. But the key is not allowing legal purchase of guns to be done by criminals, and whether just a background check or a full licensing, our system protects against that. Obviously if someone with a clean record buys legally with the intent to commit a crime, not much can be done to see that coming and prevent them. Are guns registered? In some States yes, In others no.
From the description it largely feels like America's issue with guns stems from there being no national consensus on the issue.
Also background checks aren't really enough to hand out guns in my opinion. Shouldn't there be tests and further education on the issue? I mean alcohol and driving appears to be so much better policed than guns, and I'm sure the numbers of death on driving and alcohol is far superior to that of gun related deaths (since they are probably two of the largest killers in society), but still anything that has the sole purpose of killing something should have these sort of things.
So follow up question: what goes into registration of weapons in states? Are there states that require tests? Are children and society as a whole educated regarding proper use of a weapon?
|
On March 01 2012 19:58 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 19:40 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 19:34 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 19:31 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 19:24 falaakr wrote:StarStrider United States. March 01 2012 19:16. Posts 70 PM Profile Quote #
On March 01 2012 18:31 falaakr wrote:
Being pro gun = want all the criminals to have a gun.
False. Just incorrect on many levels. Completely ridiculous logic. It's not because you don't want it to be true that it isn't. No, you're right, it's not that. It's because it is flawed logic. So flawed that there is no point in telling you how wrong it is, it is simply so atrocious that there isn't really anything else to say about it. If anyone can have guns, all criminals can have guns. That's basic logic. With strict gun control there are less guns in circulation, only the bigger criminals can get them. You make it sound as if getting a gun is as easy as going to McDonald's and grabbing a bag of McDoubles. See my above post where someone asked about gun laws from state to state. There are systems in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Except the ones who never get caught. And even tho, if you're a criminal, spent time in jail, have a police record as long as my arm, and want a gun, no problem ! Your innocent neightbour as one to protect himself. Just steal it when he's at work ! Easy weapons for citizen implies easy weapons for criminals. Seems logic to me at least
It is IMPOSSIBLE to buy a weapon legally if you can't pass a background check (ie, if you have a criminal record). This means as a criminal you are left with 2 choices: steal one, or buy one in the shady business. Responsible gun ownership means properly securing your firearms. In the proper safe with proper trigger locks, it CANNOT be stolen and CANNOT be used, unless someone has a lot of time on their hands. So we must address responsible ownership. Then we must also address how the black market obtains them. These lowlifes who sell to criminals don't have a backroom deal with Ruger....they obtain them either through theft, or through a friend of a friend of a friend who sold private party to private party. So that also goes back to responsible gun ownership: you can't just sell it anytime to anyone.
|
People are always arguing that law abiding citizens should be able to have guns, but you must also think about the risk that some one that has a gun becomes a criminal just because he can, because he has a gun. Look at all the school shootings in the US, what would the kids do if they didn't have guns? Don't we see enough tragedies where the possesion of the gun makes the criminal?
On March 01 2012 20:08 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 19:58 Agathon wrote:On March 01 2012 19:40 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 19:34 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 19:31 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 19:24 falaakr wrote:StarStrider United States. March 01 2012 19:16. Posts 70 PM Profile Quote #
On March 01 2012 18:31 falaakr wrote:
Being pro gun = want all the criminals to have a gun.
False. Just incorrect on many levels. Completely ridiculous logic. It's not because you don't want it to be true that it isn't. No, you're right, it's not that. It's because it is flawed logic. So flawed that there is no point in telling you how wrong it is, it is simply so atrocious that there isn't really anything else to say about it. If anyone can have guns, all criminals can have guns. That's basic logic. With strict gun control there are less guns in circulation, only the bigger criminals can get them. You make it sound as if getting a gun is as easy as going to McDonald's and grabbing a bag of McDoubles. See my above post where someone asked about gun laws from state to state. There are systems in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Except the ones who never get caught. And even tho, if you're a criminal, spent time in jail, have a police record as long as my arm, and want a gun, no problem ! Your innocent neightbour as one to protect himself. Just steal it when he's at work ! Easy weapons for citizen implies easy weapons for criminals. Seems logic to me at least It is IMPOSSIBLE to buy a weapon legally if you can't pass a background check (ie, if you have a criminal record). This means as a criminal you are left with 2 choices: steal one, or buy one in the shady business. Responsible gun ownership means properly securing your firearms. In the proper safe with proper trigger locks, it CANNOT be stolen and CANNOT be used, unless someone has a lot of time on their hands. So we must address responsible ownership. Then we must also address how the black market obtains them. These lowlifes who sell to criminals don't have a backroom deal with Ruger....they obtain them either through theft, or through a friend of a friend of a friend who sold private party to private party. So that also goes back to responsible gun ownership: you can't just sell it anytime to anyone.
Rofl! Except all the kids who take their parents guns? We are talking as young as 8-9 year-olds who become murderers.
|
On March 01 2012 20:04 bittman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 19:53 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 19:45 Defacer wrote:On March 01 2012 19:39 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 19:23 bittman wrote:
Since one the whole ownership of a gun strikes me as odd I've never looked into laws around the world for it, so honest question:
How are guns and weapons policed in America? If I remember right you need a gun licence yes? What criteria is required for that? Each State has its own gun laws. Some are widely accepted and are acknowledged from one state to another, while other states require you to follow their specific gun laws when entering their state, and won't recognize the laws of other states. And some cities like New York City have complete bans for non-law enforcement (of course, they even ban pepper spray). As far as licenses, some states do require licenses to purchase and own, while others simply require a background check. Concealed carry permits are different though...If you want to be able to carry under your jacket or behind your belt you have to have special permit for that. Some states that is easy to obtain, others only possible if you are in law enforcement. But the key is not allowing legal purchase of guns to be done by criminals, and whether just a background check or a full licensing, our system protects against that. Obviously if someone with a clean record buys legally with the intent to commit a crime, not much can be done to see that coming and prevent them. Are guns registered? In some States yes, In others no. From the description it largely feels like America's issue with guns stems from there being no national consensus on the issue. Also background checks aren't really enough to hand out guns in my opinion. Shouldn't there be tests and further education on the issue? I mean alcohol and driving appears to be so much better policed than guns, and I'm sure the numbers of death on driving and alcohol is far superior to that of gun related deaths (since they are probably two of the largest killers in society), but still anything that has the sole purpose of killing something should have these sort of things. So follow up question: what goes into registration of weapons in states? Are there states that require tests? Are children and society as a whole educated regarding proper use of a weapon?
I would be TOTALLY for more education on proper and responsible gun use. Most gun injuries and deaths are caused by ignorance, or a total lack of respect for the weapon. Safety education and shooting training would make people safer, and more responsible. The current thought is that the dealer will give a short training course upon purchase, and the individual is expected to maintain a responsible knowledge of the gun and how to use it and disable it, but this is WAY lacking, and I think alot of the statistics on accidents could be eliminated if people were educated better....some kind of national standard for this would be awesome.
|
On March 01 2012 20:09 Elroi wrote:People are always arguing that law abiding citizens should be able to have guns, but you must also think about the risk that some one that has a gun becomes a criminal just because he can, because he has a gun. Look at all the school shootings in the US, what would the kids do if they didn't have guns? Don't we see enough tragedies where the possesion of the gun makes the criminal? Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 20:08 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 19:58 Agathon wrote:On March 01 2012 19:40 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 19:34 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 19:31 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 19:24 falaakr wrote:StarStrider United States. March 01 2012 19:16. Posts 70 PM Profile Quote #
On March 01 2012 18:31 falaakr wrote:
Being pro gun = want all the criminals to have a gun.
False. Just incorrect on many levels. Completely ridiculous logic. It's not because you don't want it to be true that it isn't. No, you're right, it's not that. It's because it is flawed logic. So flawed that there is no point in telling you how wrong it is, it is simply so atrocious that there isn't really anything else to say about it. If anyone can have guns, all criminals can have guns. That's basic logic. With strict gun control there are less guns in circulation, only the bigger criminals can get them. You make it sound as if getting a gun is as easy as going to McDonald's and grabbing a bag of McDoubles. See my above post where someone asked about gun laws from state to state. There are systems in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Except the ones who never get caught. And even tho, if you're a criminal, spent time in jail, have a police record as long as my arm, and want a gun, no problem ! Your innocent neightbour as one to protect himself. Just steal it when he's at work ! Easy weapons for citizen implies easy weapons for criminals. Seems logic to me at least It is IMPOSSIBLE to buy a weapon legally if you can't pass a background check (ie, if you have a criminal record). This means as a criminal you are left with 2 choices: steal one, or buy one in the shady business. Responsible gun ownership means properly securing your firearms. In the proper safe with proper trigger locks, it CANNOT be stolen and CANNOT be used, unless someone has a lot of time on their hands. So we must address responsible ownership. Then we must also address how the black market obtains them. These lowlifes who sell to criminals don't have a backroom deal with Ruger....they obtain them either through theft, or through a friend of a friend of a friend who sold private party to private party. So that also goes back to responsible gun ownership: you can't just sell it anytime to anyone. Rofl! Except all the kids who take their parents guns? We are talking as young as 8-9 year-olds who become murderers.
THAT IS IRRESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP. Congrats, you have correctly provided an example of it. If, when stored in the houes, guns are not in quick combo safe BARE MINIMUM then you're doing it wrong.
|
On March 01 2012 19:59 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 19:45 falaakr wrote:
The issue is that you can't regulate a thing that is that widely spread, and that will remains widely spread as long as every one has the right to own a gun.
Thus if you want to regulate, you must ban. Nah, not at all. Regulation is very simple actually. Every gun is serialized by the manufacturer. And gun shops have specific licensing. The underground market will always exist yes, and you can't regulate that. But you can keep guns from circulating to it from shops. The amount of guns that are traveling from gun shops to the black market today is negligible. It is mostly used guns sold from private owner to private owner that find their way there, or guns that are stolen. And again, those problems go back to personal responsibility and education of gun owners.
Yea, it would (and I hope i can even say is) easy to regulate 1st hand market.
The issue is as you said with people that own gun. Do you really think every gun owner is responsible enought to not sell, but also not lose (ok), or get stolen (that would be much harder)? Even with proper education you can't do that. The only solution would be to control every gun owner, without noticing in advance, and regulary, that they still have their gun (with the verification of the serial number and all). And send to jail every gun owner that has not his gun anymore. That is not only pretty much impossible because it would be very expensive, but it would also be a heavier threat to freedom. And it would not be just, as someone who get is gun stolen would be sent to jail.
On the other hand, banning gun is much easier (maybe not within the first years, but on a longer term), much more effective, much less expensive.
On another tone, what do you think about people that claim the right to live where one doesn't have access to a tool designed to kill them ?
Why wouldn't that be a "natural right", caus it does make much more sens that the right to own a device designed to kill people.
|
Criminals' best source of guns is previously law-abiding gun owners, themselves.
|
On March 01 2012 20:16 falaakr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 19:59 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 19:45 falaakr wrote:
The issue is that you can't regulate a thing that is that widely spread, and that will remains widely spread as long as every one has the right to own a gun.
Thus if you want to regulate, you must ban. Nah, not at all. Regulation is very simple actually. Every gun is serialized by the manufacturer. And gun shops have specific licensing. The underground market will always exist yes, and you can't regulate that. But you can keep guns from circulating to it from shops. The amount of guns that are traveling from gun shops to the black market today is negligible. It is mostly used guns sold from private owner to private owner that find their way there, or guns that are stolen. And again, those problems go back to personal responsibility and education of gun owners. Yea, it would (and I hope i can even say is) easy to regulate 1st hand market. The issue is as you said with people that own gun. Do you really think every gun owner is responsible enought to not sell, but also not lose (ok), or get stolen (that would be much harder)? Even with proper education you can't do that. The only solution would be to control every gun owner, without noticing in advance, and regulary, that they still have their gun (with the verification of the serial number and all). And send to jail every gun owner that has not his gun anymore. That is not only pretty much impossible because it would be very expensive, but it would also be a heavier threat to freedom. And it would not be just, as someone who get is gun stolen would be sent to jail. On the other hand, banning gun is much easier (maybe not within the first years, but on a longer term), much more effective, much less expensive. On another tone, what do you think about people that claim the right to live where one doesn't have access to a tool designed to kill them ? Why wouldn't that be a "natural right", caus it does make much more sens that the right to own a device designed to kill people.
As to your first point, no, of course I don't think that. There will always be X number of irresponsible gun owners, or people that do stupid absent minded shit, regardless of how many times over and over and over you educate them on the dangers of unsafe storage, or the dangers of selling to someone you don't know and trust. But reducing that number is the key. If we can reduce that number greatly, then it becomes hardly an issue anymore.
And maybe a complete ban would be much easier in another more progressive country, but in this country, absolutely not. A complete ban on firearms in the United States of America (as we know it) will NEVER EVER EVER happen as long as our Constitution exists. It isn't a matter of being easy, effective, or cost-efficient. IT WON'T HAPPEN. You could offer a magic cure that would make it be free, happen easily, and erase all guns instantaneously. This country will never ever pass it into reality. You can hate the US for being that way, but you're going to have to get over it, because a ban of all private firearms will never happen.
If people want to live in a fictional place where guns don't exist, they are free to move to any country they like to search for that place. That is their natural right. To go wherever they please on this earth.
|
On March 01 2012 20:27 seppolevne wrote:
Criminals' best source of guns is previously law-abiding gun owners, themselves.
Only about 1% of gun crimes are committed by the legal carrier of that gun.
|
In fact these place do exist. At least something that is very close to it.
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal.
|
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers.
|
weapons for hunters and that does not include hand guns. is my opinion. works well in sweden.
|
On March 01 2012 20:16 falaakr wrote:
On the other hand, banning gun is much easier (maybe not within the first years, but on a longer term), much more effective, much less expensive.
Youre right, it is much easier to violate rights than to respect them.
I would seriously love to see a politician in the US try to ban firearms. It would be the most hilarious fail in US political history.
|
On March 01 2012 20:33 falaakr wrote:
In fact these place do exist. At least something that is very close to it.
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal.
Because Governments should be afraid of their people and what they are capable of.
|
On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
the point of allowing guns has nothing to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers.
So you would give all the criminal guns in exchange for maybe have a higher change to win an hypothetical revolution that could maybe happen one day, maybe, when the goverment would have turned evil.
Are you aware that your son being shot by a thug that paniced is very mire likely to happen?
I hope then you will think about why did this thug had a gun.
|
On March 01 2012 20:33 falaakr wrote:
In fact these place do exist. At least something that is very close to it.
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal.
You are implying that the American people on majority would ever do such a thing. They won't. It's like asking Brits to get rid of the Queen, or the Netherlands to ban wooden clogs.... I know these are bad examples because there is no terrible statistics to justify getting rid of 'em, but I'm saying it's part of the country's ancestry, heritage, culture....everything that they feel makes them countrymen. Firearms in America represent more than just personal protection and safety, they represent an ideal.....an ideal that you will always be so individual that you are allowed to own a deadly weapon, but so unified as a nation that you could band together with your weapons to overthrow your government or any foreign invaders. An ideal that for 200+ years your ancestors have fought and died by the gun for freedom and liberty, and you have not just the right but the obligation as an American citizen to do the same thing if need be. 'Put your trust in God; but mind to keep your powder dry' -Cromwell
|
On March 01 2012 20:38 rhmiller907 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 20:33 falaakr wrote:
In fact these place do exist. At least something that is very close to it.
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal. Because Governments should be afraid of their people and what they are capable of.
I was going to answer that, but i couldn't find any way to do so without being banned.
|
On March 01 2012 20:33 Herculix wrote:
guns have little (but not necessarily nothing) to do with crime rates or murder nor does it have a correlating effect that you can definitively point to guns causing. these things have more to do with culture and poverty and employment.
in the end, if your country bans you from arming yourself, i have only this to say. i hope when the day comes where you or your descendents have to rise against your government, that your allies have the dignity and the spirit to rise up for you, because without arms, you will be nothing but target practice. the US was created as a result of such an instance, so it is an experience imbedded in our culture. an american who allows himself to be disarmed by his government has forgotten the lesson learned the hard way by his forefathers.
That's a paranoid delusion but for the sake of argument let's say it's a real danger. Do you actually think that armed civilians are going to be able to resist the greatest military to ever exist? I know that a lot of gun nuts like to play soldier but how would they fare against actual ones? And good luck fending off air strikes with your AK-47.
|
On March 01 2012 20:42 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 20:33 falaakr wrote:
In fact these place do exist. At least something that is very close to it.
And i don't see why a ban on private ownership would be impossible in USA.
Constitutions
1) Can be changed
2) Are not the higher source of law.
International treaty are an higher source of law than constitution, in every country in the world, including USA.
If the USA sign a treaty that ban private gun ownership, even if it's against the constitution, private gun ownership will be illegal. You are implying that the American people on majority would ever do such a thing. They won't. It's like asking Brits to get rid of the Queen, or the Netherlands to ban wooden clogs.... I know these are bad examples because there is no terrible statistics to justify getting rid of 'em, but I'm saying it's part of the country's ancestry, heritage, culture....everything that they feel makes them countrymen. Firearms in America represent more than just personal protection and safety, they represent an ideal.....an ideal that you will always be so individual that you are allowed to own a deadly weapon, but so unified as a nation that you could band together with your weapons to overthrow your government or any foreign invaders. An ideal that for 200+ years your ancestors have fought and died by the gun for freedom and liberty, and you have not just the right but the obligation as an American citizen to do the same thing if need be. 'Put your trust in God; but mind to keep your powder dry' -Cromwell
Well, in fact the majority of americans don't even need to accept that. But it's true that very few political men would do such thing, because they usually want to be reelected. (and that's why democraty is bad, but sadly all the other systems we know are worse).
But i think that one day americans will change their mind. At least i hope so.
|
Reading this thread hurted my brain. Misconceptions, misconceptions everywhere.
#1 think I'll remember from US gun-nuts is that if you don't have a gun, you're not in safety.
THAT MAKES SENSE, look at Europe ! We're all fearing for our lives !
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
