|
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 03 2012 10:07 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 09:37 Defacer wrote:On March 02 2012 14:10 TanGeng wrote:On March 02 2012 10:59 Defacer wrote:
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.
Someone trotted out the "Nothing to hide" argument... I don't know if that is a general disregard for privacy of the people, but the owner of fifty assault rifles might be interesting, but the owners of one or two firearms aren't. I just think that sometimes invasion of privacy is justifiable. It's unfair to the responsible gun owners out there, but don't blame me, blame all the nutbars and retards out there preparing for World War 5. If registering guns acts as a effective deterrent to the 1% of wackjobs out there that want a gun to do something crazy, than maybe it's worth it. It saves lives. Let's put it this way: I think guns should be, at the very least, as regulated as cars -- you should need to earn a license, a registered vehicle, be insured etc. Seriously. Who thinks licence plates are a bad idea? There's also no correlation with large gun collections and violent crime. I'm a completely responsible and rights respecting person, and, if I had the money my firearm collection would be very large. Am I a nutbar/retard because of this? On the other hand, all it takes is a single $100 gun to go on a rampage.
If you sold someone one of you hypothetical guns, and someone got killed with that gun, they would be able to find you, and who you sold the gun to.
It's not that complicated or outlandish. Being able to have a gun tracked to you is a deterrent, albeit an immeasurable one. The same way a security guard or alarm system deters theft.
You're right, a single person can go an a rampage with a $100 gun. All the more reason to have that gun registered so we can find him. We're in agreement!
I'm not accusing people of owning large gun collections of being nutbars. I'm saying the ease and potential consequence of a nutbar getting a gun is large enough to justify regulation, particularly in the US.
What exactly is your argument against a gun registry, by the way? That it's expensive? A pain in the ass? It makes it harder for you to build the hypothetical gun collection you can't afford.
Lot's of things are expensive and inconvenient. Like the military. And health care. And the ministry of transportation. You can argue all you want about their efficiency, and whether or not they can do things better. But that's not arguing whether their existence is justifiable.
|
Guns are dangerous in the same way cars and chainsaws are dangerous. In the hands of an irresponsible or malicious person they can be deadly. I suspect the root of many people's attitude toward guns is they can't conceive of a practical use for them in the hands of private citizens.
To me the onus is not on the person seeking to own a gun, it is on the person who seeks to prohibit guns. There is an enormous cost to banning anything. You have to have a policing entity to enforce the laws, and a justice system to prosecute and jail violators. Criminalizing gun ownership has a wider impact than just making us "safe from guns". Just ask Plaxico Burress!
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4493887
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:37 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 14:10 TanGeng wrote:On March 02 2012 10:59 Defacer wrote:
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.
Someone trotted out the "Nothing to hide" argument... I don't know if that is a general disregard for privacy of the people, but the owner of fifty assault rifles might be interesting, but the owners of one or two firearms aren't. I just think that sometimes invasion of privacy is justifiable. It's unfair to the responsible gun owners out there, but don't blame me, blame all the nutbars and retards out there preparing for World War 5. If registering guns acts as a effective deterrent to the 1% of wackjobs out there that want a gun to do something crazy, than maybe it's worth it. It saves lives. Let's put it this way: I think guns should be, at the very least, as regulated as cars -- you should need to earn a license, a registered vehicle, be insured etc. Seriously. Who thinks licence plates are a bad idea?
No, you are suffering paranoia akin to that of the wackjobs preparing for WW5. It's a different direction of paranoia.
License plates are only necessary if you drive on public roads. You could own a car, keep it on your private property, and never have a problem with the law. The plates are a permit for passage on public roads and it's akin to tags issued by private road owners and toll road operators for limited or unlimited use.
It's inconceivable for any politic to issue an "unlimited use" (aim it at someone or discharge a bullet) permit for guns on public property. People carry and own guns with the idea that they shouldn't have to use it. Usage without good reason is public domain. Ownership isn't. Target practice at fire ranges are on private property, and target range operators enforce standards of safe use.
|
Belgium has just tightened gun ownership even more: now even historical or "folklore" fireweapons are no longer permitted to be sold without having a permit(which is difficult to attain) , learn something from this!
|
On March 03 2012 11:01 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 10:07 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 09:37 Defacer wrote:On March 02 2012 14:10 TanGeng wrote:On March 02 2012 10:59 Defacer wrote:
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.
Someone trotted out the "Nothing to hide" argument... I don't know if that is a general disregard for privacy of the people, but the owner of fifty assault rifles might be interesting, but the owners of one or two firearms aren't. I just think that sometimes invasion of privacy is justifiable. It's unfair to the responsible gun owners out there, but don't blame me, blame all the nutbars and retards out there preparing for World War 5. If registering guns acts as a effective deterrent to the 1% of wackjobs out there that want a gun to do something crazy, than maybe it's worth it. It saves lives. Let's put it this way: I think guns should be, at the very least, as regulated as cars -- you should need to earn a license, a registered vehicle, be insured etc. Seriously. Who thinks licence plates are a bad idea? There's also no correlation with large gun collections and violent crime. I'm a completely responsible and rights respecting person, and, if I had the money my firearm collection would be very large. Am I a nutbar/retard because of this? On the other hand, all it takes is a single $100 gun to go on a rampage. If you sold someone one of you hypothetical guns, and someone got killed with that gun, they would be able to find you, and who you sold the gun to. It's not that complicated or outlandish. Being able to have a gun tracked to you is a deterrent, albeit an immeasurable one. The same way a security guard or alarm system deters theft. You're right, a single person can go an a rampage with a $100 gun. All the more reason to have that gun registered so we can find him. We're in agreement! I'm not accusing people of owning large gun collections of being nutbars. I'm saying the ease and potential consequence of a nutbar getting a gun is large enough to justify regulation, particularly in the US. What exactly is your argument against a gun registry, by the way? That it's expensive? A pain in the ass? It makes it harder for you to build the hypothetical gun collection you can't afford. Lot's of things are expensive and inconvenient. Like the military. And health care. And the ministry of transportation. You can argue all you want about their efficiency, and whether or not they can do things better. But that's not arguing whether their existence is justifiable.
The fact that gun registries have been tried in many locations with the exact same logic you propose, yet never actually help solve any crimes. Canada has a registry that has costed well over a billion dollars and has helped solve exactly 0 crimes. Which is why they are doing away with it. My state, maryland, has a an under the table registration (it's technically illegal but they have a loophole) in which any transfer of a (regulated) firearm must be recorded. So they know who has them anyways. How many crimes has this helped solve? 0. Oh yea, and maryland also has a fired casing law where any firearm brought into maryland must have a fired shell casing. Because casings are supposedly like fingerprints right? You can match a casing to a firearm and know theoretically which gun did the shooting. Except that the marks left on the casings by extractor and ejector change over time as the parts get worn. Not to mention people can swap them out anyways.
Your theorycrafting of how a registration would help has convinced many, many people to try it. Invariably, people discover that it never helps. Why? Because baddies don't leave guns at the crime scene. So you'd have to find the baddie before you can find the gun to use the registration to find the baddie anyways. Then also, once they know there is a registration in effect, they aren't going to use their own guns to shoot people. They steal somebody else's. How do you track a gun reported as stolen?
Justify how a billion dollars spent on registration in your country that has not contributed to the closing of a single crime is worth it. A billion dollars could pay for a lot more man-hours for actual detectives who could then work not only on firearm crimes but others as well. I can guarantee that they would help close more cases.
|
On March 03 2012 17:38 EvilContrarian wrote:
Guns are dangerous in the same way cars and chainsaws are dangerous. In the hands of an irresponsible or malicious person they can be deadly. I suspect the root of many people's attitude toward guns is they can't conceive of a practical use for them in the hands of private citizens.
Brilliant. And here I was only looking for a new car to get me from A to B.
On March 04 2012 05:10 RetroAspect wrote:
Belgium has just tightened gun ownership even more: now even historical or "folklore" fireweapons are no longer permitted to be sold without having a permit(which is difficult to attain) , learn something from this!
Yeah and considering your past, it's quite something - with ze Germans still at your doorstep et al.
|
holy fuck... I just heard four gun shot rounds go off like 3 minutes ago outside my window. I swear everyday I hear the ambulance at night. I just mind my own business and don't get involved in any gang activity, but what if one day I get shot by the crossfire? That actually happened before in my city, some young woman got shot while watching TV because a stray bullet shot through her window and instantly killed her. 
|
On March 04 2012 19:48 Silentness wrote:holy fuck... I just heard four gun shot rounds go off like 3 minutes ago outside my window. I swear everyday I hear the ambulance at night. I just mind my own business and don't get involved in any gang activity, but what if one day I get shot by the crossfire? That actually happened before in my city, some young woman got shot while watching TV because a stray bullet shot through her window and instantly killed her.
If you can afford it move the fuck out of that neighborhood.
|
^If you can afford a one way ticket to Australia make the move, friendly english speaking nation with better living conditions and strict gun laws.
|
On March 04 2012 20:33 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 19:48 Silentness wrote:holy fuck... I just heard four gun shot rounds go off like 3 minutes ago outside my window. I swear everyday I hear the ambulance at night. I just mind my own business and don't get involved in any gang activity, but what if one day I get shot by the crossfire? That actually happened before in my city, some young woman got shot while watching TV because a stray bullet shot through her window and instantly killed her. If you can afford it move the fuck out of that neighborhood.
lol no I can't afford it at the moment. I'm paying for two apartments at the moment. (long story)
|
The answer is easy: no. Now, if you refer specifically to the United States, things are more complicated because they already have guns, and making sure everyone leaves guns is a titanic task to do (and it will probably fail).
|
"At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason" why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs."
|
On March 04 2012 22:20 samaNo4 wrote:
The answer is easy: no. Now, if you refer specifically to the United States, things are more complicated because they already have guns, and making sure everyone leaves guns is a titanic task to do (and it will probably fail).
The answer is not easy because of differing conditions. When you live in a place like Alaska or Canada's Northwest Territories, guns might be essential for hunting and thus survival, while guns have much less use in a dense urban area. Localize the solutions and policies, but don't apply a cookie-cutter solution for everyone.
|
Well it's not allowed to discuss it in the Aurora shooting thread.
And I know I shouldn't use today's events but it makes me so angry and frustrated, all these deads.
I really wonder if there's anyone from the USA here that can honestly say that your gun laws aren't at least partly to blame for today's shootings?
Check this list as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
That's right. Your table of school shootings is bigger than all other countries in the world together.
I would love to see the US abandon their gun policy or at least make it a lot harder to get multiple guns and explosives as a 24 years old. Less weapons in the world is a good thing in my book.
Instead they will probably add more. Security guards with guns at every cinema.
Even one of your founding fathers said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
|
On July 21 2012 02:27 Zandar wrote:Well it's not allowed to discuss it in the Aurora shooting thread. And I know I shouldn't use today's events but it makes me so angry and frustrated, all these deads. I really wonder if there's anyone from the USA here that can honestly say that your gun laws aren't at least partly to blame for today's shootings? Check this list as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootingThat's right. Your table of school shootings is bigger than all other countries in the world together. I would love to see the US abandon their gun policy or at least make it a lot harder to get multiple guns and explosives as a 24 years old. Less weapons in the world is a good thing in my book. Instead they will probably add more. Security guards with guns at every cinema. Even one of your founding fathers said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Are they to blame for today's SHOOTINGS? Arguable, possible.
Are they to blame for today's DEATHS? Absolutely not. Bombs were found in the guy's apartment. Putting a rag in a vodka bottle and throwing it in the crowd would have, at least, disfigured a number of people, and then caused many others to be trampled.
Placing a bomb nearby could have -easily- killed as many people if not more. The man had all the intentions required to go fucking insane in public and take as many people down as he could. The method was a gun. If we lived in a world with no guns? It would have been a bomb.
Like I said. Bombs were -found in his apartment-
You try to sell to me the idea that people don't die, guns or not.
|
Such a controversial topic. However, I did a study on gun control back in 8th grade for a debate and at the time I found that the statistics of deaths and survivals by being robbed at gunpoint were actually in favor of letting people carry guns!
|
On July 21 2012 02:27 Zandar wrote:Well it's not allowed to discuss it in the Aurora shooting thread. And I know I shouldn't use today's events but it makes me so angry and frustrated, all these deads. I really wonder if there's anyone from the USA here that can honestly say that your gun laws aren't at least partly to blame for today's shootings? Check this list as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootingThat's right. Your table of school shootings is bigger than all other countries in the world together. I would love to see the US abandon their gun policy or at least make it a lot harder to get multiple guns and explosives as a 24 years old. Less weapons in the world is a good thing in my book. Instead they will probably add more. Security guards with guns at every cinema. Even one of your founding fathers said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Your last sentence kinda nullifies your entire argument. You're taking away my guns for your safety. That's taking away freedom for security. Things like this happen almost every year. Some retard goes lunatic and kills some people. Then for two months it's all "oh gun safety gun safety!" and after that two months nobody gives a shit anymore. Quite honestly I'm tired of people blowing up singular instances like that one when literally thousands of people are abducted, and killed everyday. But nobody talks about that. Even if you make it harder to get guns, there's this thing called a black market that these people would go to. These people are buying guns for the sole purpose of killing other people so making more laws wouldn't stop them. They're going to do something illegal anyways. You're just inhibiting everyone else who wants to legally own a gun.
|
On July 21 2012 02:27 Zandar wrote:Well it's not allowed to discuss it in the Aurora shooting thread. And I know I shouldn't use today's events but it makes me so angry and frustrated, all these deads. I really wonder if there's anyone from the USA here that can honestly say that your gun laws aren't at least partly to blame for today's shootings? Check this list as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootingThat's right. Your table of school shootings is bigger than all other countries in the world together. I would love to see the US abandon their gun policy or at least make it a lot harder to get multiple guns and explosives as a 24 years old. Less weapons in the world is a good thing in my book. Instead they will probably add more. Security guards with guns at every cinema. Even one of your founding fathers said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Did you read any of that aurora thread? The guy was bat-shit insane. He made bombs as well, this has NOTHING to do with guns laws. If he didnt have a gun, he would have gotten a knife, machete, axe, whatever. Might have even thrown those homemade bombs around in that theater.
You can't stop crazy people and I still cringe every time I hear an uneducated (and usually foreign) person speak out about guns laws that they know nothing of. The problem is our society, not the gun laws.
Just as another counter argument, this elderly man stopped an armed robbery a couple days ago.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/crime/2012/07/17/dnt-internet-cafe-robbery-foiled.wkmg
I fully support the right to own and carry a firearm. Even if you make it more difficult or even fully illegal to have a gun, the bad guys will still gets their hands on them pretty easily. I want to be able to legally defend myself like this guy in the bank robbery if I happen to be in the wrong place and the right time one day.
|
People should not be allowed to carry handguns, as they are too easily concealed, and besides on a firing range, serve no purpose other than to kill other people, either in self defense, or in aggression.
Legality should be limited to shotguns and semi-automatic rifles. If you're a gun enthusiast, get a rifle, they are more fun to shoot anyway. They could maybe have special licenses for firing ranges allowing them to own handguns.
|
On July 21 2012 02:27 Zandar wrote:Well it's not allowed to discuss it in the Aurora shooting thread. And I know I shouldn't use today's events but it makes me so angry and frustrated, all these deads. I really wonder if there's anyone from the USA here that can honestly say that your gun laws aren't at least partly to blame for today's shootings? Check this list as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootingThat's right. Your table of school shootings is bigger than all other countries in the world together. I would love to see the US abandon their gun policy or at least make it a lot harder to get multiple guns and explosives as a 24 years old. Less weapons in the world is a good thing in my book. Instead they will probably add more. Security guards with guns at every cinema. Even one of your founding fathers said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Correlation not causation, at best you can say it enables though who are already mentally disturbed, lowers the bar for what they can be capable of. The USA also has a disproportional number of serial killers(today doesn't count as a serial killer btw it's a killing spree), most of which call under white near the age of 30, lower middle class males.
In fact there is a thread on it
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=173613
Simple put I don't really care if people own guns, does it make life more dangerous probably, but would i think that more guns = more mass killings, nope a person with a knife and some training/depraved motivation could be pretty bad. At best i'm strict on gun regulation, personally i think guns should be restricted to hunting rifles and shotguns with limited cartage size as a pragmatic approach to gun legislation, ie what guns are mostly used for. Outside of that hand guns and assault shotguns and assault rifles limited to police and military.
I never understood the idea that if everyone had guns the world would be safer, as if everyone is a trained police officer who will consider the consequences of starting a gunfight in a public area where bullets can go though walls and cause collateral damage. If you're being robbed just get robbed no need to fight back, let the police and insurance handle it. It's not like you're being robbed every week just fighting back just raises the chances the robbery will turn into a homicide.
Personally this isn't so much failure of gun regulation but rather the fbi, if he was stock piling and making explosives that's something the fbi is suppose to track and take care of. But they can't be omnipotent as even with stricter laws all you do is raise the bar for deprived individuals, it will never stop deprived individuals. And to that extent you have to ask what benefits guns brings vs what potential harm they can also bring. Which is why i'm okay with hunting rifles/shotguns, and not really fine with handguns and assault rifles, if there are handguns and assault rifles i'd probably want them limited to shooting clubs/ranges to which they must be kept on the grounds. incidentally i'm going out with some ex-police officers to a firing range on the weekend. Anyways i'm mostly peeved at what i quoted becuase of the blame of gunlaws to what happened, guns aren't to blame for the actions of a depraved individual, did they assist in his tirade, absolutely, but they aren't the cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
