|
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 02 2012 02:25 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:18 Silvertine wrote:On March 02 2012 02:08 Dizmaul wrote:
Murder rates in the US have been on the decline over the last 20 years. As in not going up but going down. From 9.8 in 1991 to 4.8 in 2010. Gun related???? Violent crime down from 758.2 to 403.6. Property crime down from 5,140 to 2,941. If our high rates are caused by guns these numbers should be the opposite, since our gun control is not tightening up. Right, because anytime crime rates increase or decrease it's automatically a reflection of current gun control policy. *facepalm* Exactly my point smart guy. There are so many variables that saying our high rate is directly gun related is invalid. One thing you can say though is our rate is not going up because of guns. Also this isn't just a random fluctuation in the rate. Its a steady decline over a 20 year period that's still on the decline. The US is getting SAFER, and its not because we are restricting guns. *facepalm*
True, an anti-gun poster would use these statistics to prove that gun control works. The thing is though.......gun sales have gone up during this time, and......gun control regulation has not increased significantly during this time........hmmm.....what explains it then?
|
On March 02 2012 02:23 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:18 Silvertine wrote:On March 02 2012 02:08 Dizmaul wrote:
Murder rates in the US have been on the decline over the last 20 years. As in not going up but going down. From 9.8 in 1991 to 4.8 in 2010. Gun related???? Violent crime down from 758.2 to 403.6. Property crime down from 5,140 to 2,941. If our high rates are caused by guns these numbers should be the opposite, since our gun control is not tightening up. Right, because anytime crime rates increase or decrease it's automatically a reflection of current gun control policy. *facepalm* Then offer a statistic that you think shows crime rates increase because of guns and I'll say the same thing. You're free to draw your own conclusions from whatever stats you like....the stats remain unchanged. He is free to do the same. Of course you'll draw the conclusion that fits your bias, just like him. To what do you attribute the reduction in crime rates?
I didn't think I was being very Bias. The stats are fact, my conclusion is how can you say guns are solely responsible for high rates if they are present in a country's who's rates have been on the decline over an extended period of time.
|
On March 02 2012 02:32 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:23 StarStrider wrote:On March 02 2012 02:18 Silvertine wrote:On March 02 2012 02:08 Dizmaul wrote:
Murder rates in the US have been on the decline over the last 20 years. As in not going up but going down. From 9.8 in 1991 to 4.8 in 2010. Gun related???? Violent crime down from 758.2 to 403.6. Property crime down from 5,140 to 2,941. If our high rates are caused by guns these numbers should be the opposite, since our gun control is not tightening up. Right, because anytime crime rates increase or decrease it's automatically a reflection of current gun control policy. *facepalm* Then offer a statistic that you think shows crime rates increase because of guns and I'll say the same thing. You're free to draw your own conclusions from whatever stats you like....the stats remain unchanged. He is free to do the same. Of course you'll draw the conclusion that fits your bias, just like him. To what do you attribute the reduction in crime rates? I didn't think I was being very Bias. The stats are fact, my conclusion is how can you say guns are solely responsible for high rates if they are present in a country's who's rates have been on the decline over an extended period of time.
WHO THE FUCK EVER SAID THAT?
Nobody ever said that guns were the only factor of crime rate, neither the major factor.
That's intellectually dishonest from you 
|
On March 02 2012 02:32 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:23 StarStrider wrote:On March 02 2012 02:18 Silvertine wrote:On March 02 2012 02:08 Dizmaul wrote:
Murder rates in the US have been on the decline over the last 20 years. As in not going up but going down. From 9.8 in 1991 to 4.8 in 2010. Gun related???? Violent crime down from 758.2 to 403.6. Property crime down from 5,140 to 2,941. If our high rates are caused by guns these numbers should be the opposite, since our gun control is not tightening up. Right, because anytime crime rates increase or decrease it's automatically a reflection of current gun control policy. *facepalm* Then offer a statistic that you think shows crime rates increase because of guns and I'll say the same thing. You're free to draw your own conclusions from whatever stats you like....the stats remain unchanged. He is free to do the same. Of course you'll draw the conclusion that fits your bias, just like him. To what do you attribute the reduction in crime rates? I didn't think I was being very Bias. The stats are fact, my conclusion is how can you say guns are solely responsible for high rates if they are present in a country's who's rates have been on the decline over an extended period of time.
You have a bias. This colors your views on the issue. It's not something to be ashamed of. I have the same bias. Biases are how we draw conclusions.
I wasn't saying you were being biased in how you presented these numbers, just that you, like everyone, has a bias.
I was making commentary on how people on a side of the issue present facts or interpret them as how they feel helps their argument.
|
Should people be allowed...
"yes" should be the answer to any question starting with that.
and after, depending on what the question actually was, there should be some rules or limitations.
gambling, drugs, prostitution, weapons should be allowed.
|
On March 02 2012 02:25 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:18 Silvertine wrote:On March 02 2012 02:08 Dizmaul wrote:
Murder rates in the US have been on the decline over the last 20 years. As in not going up but going down. From 9.8 in 1991 to 4.8 in 2010. Gun related???? Violent crime down from 758.2 to 403.6. Property crime down from 5,140 to 2,941. If our high rates are caused by guns these numbers should be the opposite, since our gun control is not tightening up. Right, because anytime crime rates increase or decrease it's automatically a reflection of current gun control policy. *facepalm* Exactly my point smart guy. There are so many variables that saying our high rate is directly gun related is invalid. One thing you can say though is our rate is not going up because of guns. Also this isn't just a random fluctuation in the rate. Its a steady decline over a 20 year period that's still on the decline. The US is getting SAFER, and its not because we are restricting guns. *facepalm*
Do you understand the difference between a variation and a value? You don't seems to. You shouldn't skip maths classes.
|
On March 02 2012 02:45 falaakr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:25 Dizmaul wrote:On March 02 2012 02:18 Silvertine wrote:On March 02 2012 02:08 Dizmaul wrote:
Murder rates in the US have been on the decline over the last 20 years. As in not going up but going down. From 9.8 in 1991 to 4.8 in 2010. Gun related???? Violent crime down from 758.2 to 403.6. Property crime down from 5,140 to 2,941. If our high rates are caused by guns these numbers should be the opposite, since our gun control is not tightening up. Right, because anytime crime rates increase or decrease it's automatically a reflection of current gun control policy. *facepalm* Exactly my point smart guy. There are so many variables that saying our high rate is directly gun related is invalid. One thing you can say though is our rate is not going up because of guns. Also this isn't just a random fluctuation in the rate. Its a steady decline over a 20 year period that's still on the decline. The US is getting SAFER, and its not because we are restricting guns. *facepalm* Do you understand the difference between a variation and a value? You don't seems to. You shouldn't skip maths classes.
Insulting me is very classy dude. Great way to have a debate...... maybe you skipped that class.....
|
On March 02 2012 02:08 Dizmaul wrote:
Murder rates in the US have been on the decline over the last 20 years. As in not going up but going down. From 9.8 in 1991 to 4.8 in 2010. Gun related???? Violent crime down from 758.2 to 403.6. Property crime down from 5,140 to 2,941. If our high rates are caused by guns these numbers should be the opposite, since our gun control is not tightening up.
Nobody really knows what is causing the decline, except ironically the website many conservatives use with cherry picked states and cities http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp shows the violent crime nationally declining well before almost all of the RTC laws.
People used to think economy and gun laws had direct correlation with violent crime but violent crime continued to spike downward in states with no RTC's (Michigan, Wisconsin being examples of violence that trended downwards before RTC was adopted) and violent crime continued to fall during the huge recession. Quite simply the explanation might be a sociological value of violence and killing becoming archaic and primitive concepts, perhaps people are just getting tired of killing.
|
I am an idealistic person who believes that no one should be allowed to carry a handgun (that includes law enforcement). That being said, I recognize it as an ideal, because there is no fucking chance hand guns are going anywhere in the US.
I just think about ex-military folks like my dad. If the government ever managed to pass a law that would revoke hand guns, they would literally have to pry that shit out of someone like my my father's "cold dead hands." Now he is an extreme example, but what I'm talking about is a cultural dependency on this weapon that does not serve as a self defense tool in most of its appearances. Americans like to feel "safe" despite the obvious differences in deaths when compared to other countries.
It's such bullshit to attempt to claim that these deaths would happen without handguns. Think about what it takes to kill someone with a handgun. You point it at the person, and they are gone. It is way too easy, way too easily concealed, and far too convenient for people who are making the snap decision to kill someone when they would otherwise be unable to do it (like with a knife, which is a far more intimate scenario and I am willing to bet is much harder).
|
On March 02 2012 03:00 Fake)Plants wrote:
I am an idealistic person who believes that no one should be allowed to carry a handgun (that includes law enforcement). That being said, I recognize it as an ideal, because there is no fucking chance hand guns are going anywhere in the US.
I just think about ex-military folks like my dad. If the government ever managed to pass a law that would revoke hand guns, they would literally have to pry that shit out of someone like my my father's "cold dead hands." Now he is an extreme example, but what I'm talking about is a cultural dependency on this weapon that does not serve as a self defense tool in most of its appearances. Americans like to feel "safe" despite the obvious differences in deaths when compared to other countries.
It's such bullshit to attempt to claim that these deaths would happen without handguns. Think about what it takes to kill someone with a handgun. You point it at the person, and they are gone. It is way too easy, way too easily concealed, and far too convenient for people who are making the snap decision to kill someone when they would otherwise be unable to do it (like with a knife, which is a far more intimate scenario and I am willing to bet is much harder).
The problem is, in legislation, you can't say one person is more 'responsible' or 'capable' in handling a deadly weapon than another (provided no crim/psych background). And you can't say that if some aren't, no one else should be given the privelege. So there is no way to discriminate between someone who would pull the trigger in a split decision as you say, and someone who would responsibly only fire it when all other means are exhausted. That is the problem. You have to implicitly trust people who pass a background check to continue to be mature and responsible, which is dangerous as reflected in our accidental discharge death rate, as well as a higher murder rate, but that is the cost of the freedom of choice regarding firearms. It is good that we have the juxtaposition of the EU gun-free countries and the US 'free guns' states. In years to come, upon looking back we will have a really good idea of the different set of problems both approaches can cause and how best to approach the issue with proper compromise.
|
For those people who think that guns are the reason we have more murder in the USA don't kid yourselves it is not an weapons problem we have in the US it is a cultural problem.
|
On March 01 2012 21:57 Ryder. wrote:
I wasn't talking about the government just taking it away, I was implying something more along the lines of a referendum where it is evident that the majority of the population was in favour of it.
And I'm not saying it is irrelevant because it was 230 years old, I'm saying that values can most definitely change over that kind of time length, so treating it as gospel for the sole reason that it is the constitution doesn't make much sense to me. If people are happy with the way things are then don't fix what isn't broken, but saying that it will never ever be changed purely because it is what it is just seems silly to me.
At least judging from this thread alone most Americans seem to be pro gun ownership, so this is all hypothetical anyway.
Anyway, has been interesting reading through this thread to see all the flip side arguments, but I still think a lot of them are without merit. These seem to be the common ones;
1. Guns have other uses besides shooting other people, like hunting- Whilst somewhat relevant, this doesn't explain why handguns are legal.
2. The whole 'government becoming a tyrannical dictatorship thing'- Why would the military side with the government if this happened? I find it hard to believe they would turn on their friends and family and stand behind a crazy government. Even if that did happen, what are a couple of handguns going to do when a trained military start rolling down with tanks and airstrikes?
3. Defending your country in case of invasion; Honestly I just find this one silly; similar to point 2, if another country has the capacity to take down the most powerful military on this planet, I really don't think the rubble armed with handguns will stop them.
4. The hypothetical situations about somebody breaking into your house to rape and kill your family is just ridiculously unlikely. Unless they are psychopathic, a thief will choose not to confront the owner, the same way (as someone said earlier) that most rapists are cowards, and would much prefer to attack an alone, vulnerable woman down a dark alley, not break into your house and do it in front of you. In which case, self defense lessons/mace would probably be a better option for a woman to arm herself with.
How does the law work over in the US anyway? If you shoot and kill somebody who has broken into your house, is that a punishable offense? I have heard of so many cases over here that people trying to defend their property (without guns) have been liable if they injure the thief (either directly or indirectly).
Anyway getting tired so I will finish this post up here, not trying to be offensive so I hope my post doesn't come off the wrong way.
You weren't talking about the government taking it away, you were proposing that the people decide they don't want a right any longer?
The Constitution is not, and should not, be something that reflects the popular opinion of any particular time period. If it were easy to change, there would be very bad consequences.
I think most Americans understand that the Constitution guarantees people the right to own firearms, whether they agree with that right or not.
1) If you regard the first clause of the second amendment, you will find your answer. As an aside, handguns are used by quite a few people for hunting.
2) Look at Afghanistan and their effective resistances in the wars with the Soviets and US.
3) See my previous point. Also, Rifles will be the weapon type of choice, not handguns.
4) So if someone breaks into your house, you're going to hope they go away? A few years ago, a few kids broke into a house not far from where I lived, and the owner shot and killed one. Turns out the kid was armed. I'd rather read about a dead worthless kid than someone who was killed in their bed.
Depends on the state. In the state I live in, it is legal to shoot someone if they are not inside your house, but once they enter your house, you have to have reason to believe that they intend you harm. But this varies from state to state.
|
On March 02 2012 02:04 Leeto wrote:
A quick search on Academy's website shows these options. It is understandable if someone wants a pistol or something to defend their home from a criminal, but there is absolutely no reason why anyone would need a semiautomatic rifle for merely self-defense. The more accessible they are the more dangerous of a place it becomes.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Funny, I don't notice a self defense clause....
|
On March 02 2012 00:50 falaakr wrote:
In the case of guns, if you make them illegal, crimnals don't have them.
Just like nobody in the US has paraphernalia, there are no prostitutes, and there is no theft whatsoever.
owait.
|
On March 02 2012 07:34 allerion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 21:57 Ryder. wrote:
I wasn't talking about the government just taking it away, I was implying something more along the lines of a referendum where it is evident that the majority of the population was in favour of it.
And I'm not saying it is irrelevant because it was 230 years old, I'm saying that values can most definitely change over that kind of time length, so treating it as gospel for the sole reason that it is the constitution doesn't make much sense to me. If people are happy with the way things are then don't fix what isn't broken, but saying that it will never ever be changed purely because it is what it is just seems silly to me.
At least judging from this thread alone most Americans seem to be pro gun ownership, so this is all hypothetical anyway.
Anyway, has been interesting reading through this thread to see all the flip side arguments, but I still think a lot of them are without merit. These seem to be the common ones;
1. Guns have other uses besides shooting other people, like hunting- Whilst somewhat relevant, this doesn't explain why handguns are legal.
2. The whole 'government becoming a tyrannical dictatorship thing'- Why would the military side with the government if this happened? I find it hard to believe they would turn on their friends and family and stand behind a crazy government. Even if that did happen, what are a couple of handguns going to do when a trained military start rolling down with tanks and airstrikes?
3. Defending your country in case of invasion; Honestly I just find this one silly; similar to point 2, if another country has the capacity to take down the most powerful military on this planet, I really don't think the rubble armed with handguns will stop them.
4. The hypothetical situations about somebody breaking into your house to rape and kill your family is just ridiculously unlikely. Unless they are psychopathic, a thief will choose not to confront the owner, the same way (as someone said earlier) that most rapists are cowards, and would much prefer to attack an alone, vulnerable woman down a dark alley, not break into your house and do it in front of you. In which case, self defense lessons/mace would probably be a better option for a woman to arm herself with.
How does the law work over in the US anyway? If you shoot and kill somebody who has broken into your house, is that a punishable offense? I have heard of so many cases over here that people trying to defend their property (without guns) have been liable if they injure the thief (either directly or indirectly).
Anyway getting tired so I will finish this post up here, not trying to be offensive so I hope my post doesn't come off the wrong way. You weren't talking about the government taking it away, you were proposing that the people decide they don't want a right any longer? The Constitution is not, and should not, be something that reflects the popular opinion of any particular time period. If it were easy to change, there would be very bad consequences. I think most Americans understand that the Constitution guarantees people the right to own firearms, whether they agree with that right or not. 1) If you regard the first clause of the second amendment, you will find your answer. As an aside, handguns are used by quite a few people for hunting. 2) Look at Afghanistan and their effective resistances in the wars with the Soviets and US. 3) See my previous point. Also, Rifles will be the weapon type of choice, not handguns. 4) So if someone breaks into your house, you're going to hope they go away? A few years ago, a few kids broke into a house not far from where I lived, and the owner shot and killed one. Turns out the kid was armed. I'd rather read about a dead worthless kid than someone who was killed in their bed. Depends on the state. In the state I live in, it is legal to shoot someone if they are not inside your house, but once they enter your house, you have to have reason to believe that they intend you harm. But this varies from state to state.
You don't believe a country's laws are put in place in order to reflect the current society's values? If not for that what exactly is it for then?
I'm not saying it should be easy to change, I'm saying that refusing to change it despite an overwhelming majority wanting change sounds ridiculous.
In response to number 4, you are being very narrow minded here. You are assuming that given a state where firearm ownership is illegal, this kid still has a gun. Whilst not impossible, it is very difficult to get guns over here. So in your example why would you still assume this punk kid has a gun?
This whole mentality disgusts me too. 'Turns out the kid was armed' so you are telling me the resident of this house shot a kid he found breaking in BEFORE he even knew the kid had a gun? For all the shooter knew this kid didn't have a gun! And how you can justify murdering some kid because he broke into somebody's house just upsets me. The punishment should fit the crime, if you are going to kill some kid because he broke into your house and may be armed then might as well just execute all convicted thieves to be consistent.
Personally I'd rather a situation where no guns are involved, and you either confront the kid and he backs off or you don't and let him take your stuff. It's all insured anyway, I really can't believe most Americans would rather chance their lives in a gun fight with relatively equal chances that either you get yourself killed or you become a killer yourself, just so you can protect your stuff. If you are simply trying to ensure the safety of your family I'd say there are better ways of doing it than owning a gun.
As I said earlier I have been home during a home invasion, and honestly I did (and would in the future) feel safer confronting the thief knowing that we both don't have guns, than if we both did have guns.
As for points 2 and 3, I never said they have no merit. I'm saying like all decisions in life, you weigh up the pros and cons to decide which decision is more worthwhile. IMO considering the likelihood of 2 or 3 happening, factoring in the minute benefit having small arms will give you in a situation like that, the benefits this gives you doesn't outweigh the costs of having guns that easily accessible.
Edit: On March 01 2012 23:53 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 23:38 churbro wrote:
All these arguments about 'self defense' are ridiculous. If you weren't allowed to carry guns like you can candy bars in America, there would be no need for 'self defense' via a gun. If the media wasn't pumping biased fear into your brains on a daily basis, you wouldn't have this ridiculous train of thought that goes something like this, "ohhhh man, I'm probably going to get mugged or raped today, so i'll carry a gun in my purse!". Really?
Seriously, self defense? What are you gonna do if someone comes up to and asks for your wallet, or invades your home? (the chances of a house invasion are almost 0, and I feel silly for even bringing it up, but in reality, some bozo would have rebutted me with it). kill him? Seems a bit harsh. Here's a train of thought, get some pepper spray, or even at most, a taser. Guns for personal protection is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard. Guns should be used for hunting purposes only. A gun should be one of the hardest objects to attain, and you should have a proven track record of not being a lunatic to be able to get one.
And you Americans that are all, "hurr durr it's my right to carry a gun".. well good on you, you're only making society a more dangerous and a more terrible place. Oh and don't forget your promoting an idea which is based on flawed logic and ideas. The right to bare arms? If those founding fathers of yours would see the mess guns has caused, they'd shit them selves.
Read back some and you'll answer your own questions. But I'll restate it for you. 1. A small chance does not mean no chance. I promise my wife will never get raped with a gun in her purse. Now she never has to worry about how likely it is. 2. I can cite study after case after incident on how tazeguns and pepper spray fail people. And alot of criminals laugh if you brandish it. There is an extreme respect for something that can kill you, not just lay you out or burn your eyes. No one buys a gun with the intention to kill people except criminals. Most gun owners won't shoot you in the heart or head if you try to mug them with a knife. Most won't even need to pull the trigger. They respect the weapon and its deadly power. As I've stated previously if you read the thread, all it takes for most petty criminals is the threat because they are chickenshits. That threat is enough reason for me to carry. Imagine if a criminal knew every citizen was armed with a gun and knew how to use it. Oh by the way we call that track record a background check, and it is accurate in most cases.
1. I'd be more worried about her being killed in a gunfight/some poor bystander getting accidentally killed should she ever be attacked.
2. Every criminal does know that every citizen has the capacity to be armed with a gun. That doesn't explain why the US's gun crime rate is so much higher than most 1st world countries.
Also, saying 'most gun owners won't shoot you in the head or the heart if you mug them with a knife' you are assuming that every citizen has perfect aim whilst under attack by somebody with a knife, which I don't think I need to point out how silly this argument is.
|
On March 02 2012 09:03 Ryder. wrote:
If you are simply trying to ensure the safety of your family I'd say there are better ways of doing it than owning a gun.
And what, praytell, might that be?
|
On March 02 2012 09:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 09:03 Ryder. wrote:
If you are simply trying to ensure the safety of your family I'd say there are better ways of doing it than owning a gun. And what, praytell, might that be?
1. Alarm system to frighten burglars
2. Walk into a secure room, lock the door, call the cops. If I lived in a neighbourhood where I frequently had to worry for my life then the first thing I would do upon moving there is ensure there is a secure room you can lock you and your family in.
3. Run out the back door or another safe exit.
Or you could chance everybody's lives with a gunfight, because of course your aim is better than theirs right?
Edit: This isn't even considering the fact that most home invaders wouldn't even have guns if they were illegal, in which case you could do things like learning a martial art, or non lethal means of neutralisation.
|
On March 02 2012 09:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 09:03 Ryder. wrote:
If you are simply trying to ensure the safety of your family I'd say there are better ways of doing it than owning a gun. And what, praytell, might that be?
Avoid confrontation.
If someone is burglarizing your house, then you have some priorities to consider. You can let them take your stuff and leave, and then call the cops. That's the safest answer, by far.
Or, you can shoot at them, which opens up a lot of possibilities, such as them shooting back, and perhaps someone in your family gets shot in the mix.
Abductions, kidnappings, murders and the like are pretty rare, and almost never random. If you know some criminal element is directly after your family, and for some reason the cops aren't privy to protect you, then I guess a gun would make sense. If the thought of shooting a trespasser excites you, then a gun makes sense. But as a general means of protection within your home, shooting at people is basically guaranteed to never be the best answer. And really, unless you live in a mansion with grand ballrooms, I'd think most people would be just as well off with a kitchen knife or a baseball bat.
Note, I'm not giving my opinion on gun-control, I just personally don't buy the "protection" argument. Always feels more like an excuse to me.
As for gun-control, we all appreciate it to some degree. There's nothing about the Second Amendment that discerns one firearm for another. I think we all accept that rocket-launchers and machine-guns should not be sold to the general public. So we all accept gun-control to some degree. It's just a matter of what's reasonable. I think people should be allowed to own non-automatic recreational firearms, and not be allowed to carry them in public, concealed or otherwise. That's just where I feel the line to be.
|
On March 01 2012 20:02 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 19:57 Defacer wrote: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. Ugh. I can understand wanting a gun, but having a gun registry is must be one of the more effective instruments to track the origins of illegal guns, and would deter people from selling guns illegally. Everyone wants personal freedom, but at what risk to the rest of society? Just my opinion. Having a gun registry is also the quickest way to have a SWAT team show up to have it confiscated if the government ever deems that gun inappropriate or illegal. This is why proponents of gun freedoms like the NRA fight lawmakers at every turn on this. State laws have passed as I said, for more liberal states like California. But Federal law for a national gun registration will probably never pass under our current system of government.
If you have to conceal the fact that you own a large cache of guns, you probably shouldn't have a large cache of guns.
Not having a gun registry simply makes it to easy for people to buy and sell guns illegally without reprecussions. It's an unjustifiable trade-off.
|
I feel there are a few points I should clear up for everyone regarding gun ownership in the U.S.
Anyone without a bad criminal history can purchase a full-automatic firearm in the U.S., assuming you clear some background checks, pay a special transfer tax, and it gets approved by your local sheriff (some state laws may differ slightly). Only trouble is they have to have been manufactured prior to 1987, and can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $75,000 each.
In some states, owning a concealed carry permit means you can also openly carry the firearm in public. Never seen it in my state (which allows open carry), but I've heard it's big in Texas, idk.
A bit of history on the 2nd amendment: In the day it was written, the U.S. government was broke, lacked any real consolidation in an every day sense, a police system, and much of the army was built on militia -- which is why it made sense to make private gun ownership a right. Let the people buy the firearms to protect themselves where/when there aren't enough police, give them something to hunt with, and create a backup army at the same time.
I think now it means something much more. It's one of the best ways to prevent a government from enslaving it's people in the conventional sense (not to say we're not in some form or another based on education, economics, etc.). I often think of a paraphrase of something Benjamin Franklin once said, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security will lose both and deserve neither". Just like what happened with the U.S. Patriot Act, which I would still oppose even if it killed me, but I'm really going to have to try to stay on topic here.
I think a vast vast majority of firearm issues could be resolved by proper training given to the owners, following proper storage precautions, regular practice in use, etc. I'd be willing to bet the school shooting in Ohio today could have been completely prevented by more cautious parents. The only firearms I think should be restricted are those with explosive projectiles as they're just not practical for most every shooter. Suppressors, full-automatics, SMG's, short-barrels, all of them should be more easy to purchase imo, but should also require proof of completion of a firearm safety course at least once every 5 years.
To say that firearm ownership should be restricted or more governed speaks to ignorance imo. Should we restrict knife ownership too? Slingshots? Karate? Anyone with the proper motivation to kill someone will find a way to do it, it doesn't matter what the tool is. Hell they could use a belt or a few glasses of water if they wanted. The point I'm trying to make is that we all have a responsibility to protect our freedoms for ourselves and stop playing into this "helpless me" mentality of regulation, mandatory health insurance, and every kid gets an effort award bullshit.. And that can be done with education and responsibility, not government regulation that strips away freedoms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
