|
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 November 10 2018 02:40 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:13 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.
Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms.
It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. ...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to. It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean? Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet. The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen.
1) Australia already had low homicide rates and were on a 25 year downward trend. Just because a law was passed during that time period doesn't mean it is responsible for the homicide rates. Number of firearms have gone up in the U.S. and homicide rates overall have gone down. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? No; just means correlation doesn't mean it's the main cause.
2) Mass shootings can be reduced or prevented without taking guns away. Switzerland is a prime example of this.
3) Most European nations are not like the United States. Just because we're classified as 1st world countries doesn't mean we deal with the same issues.
|
|
|
On November 10 2018 03:12 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:40 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:13 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture.
The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have.
Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all).
Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. ...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to. It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean? Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet. The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen. 1) Australia already had low homicide rates and were on a 25 year downward trend. Just because a law was passed during that time period doesn't mean it is responsible for the homicide rates. Number of firearms have gone up in the U.S. and homicide rates overall have gone down. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? No; just means correlation doesn't mean it's the main cause. 2) Mass shootings can be reduced or prevented without taking guns away. Switzerland is a prime example of this. 3) Most European nations are not like the United States. Just because we're classified as 1st world countries doesn't mean we deal with the same issues.
1. Well let's just stick to mass shootings then. Surely a drop from "a lot" to "nothing" can't be just a coincidence, right?
2. What are you on about Switzerland has much much harsher gun laws than America. In fact they too recently added stricter gun laws to be in line with EU, and they've also seen a drop in gun violence and general homicides. You can attribute that to "well everyone are seeing lower homicide rates these days" if you want to, but if you're looking for a scapegoat to say "look, no regulations works for them!" then Switzerland ain't it.
3. Now you're just wilfully ignoring everything I just stated about how it's not a culture problem and how this line of thinking has been proven wrong multiple times, including countries where people have provided the exact same excuses before their own regulations were implemented, and saw immediate results.
|
You folks have come across the problem with discussion gun laws with superstartran. No matter what you propose, he will never agree that anything will work. The Swiss gun laws are a prime example. No matter how you frame it or say the laws could be adjusted to fit the US, he won't agree it would be acceptable. As far as I can tell, the only thing that is acceptable is no change to anything.
|
American exceptionalism again? Simberto and others already predicted this way back in the thread and now it’s repeated again. The lack of data in the US must really help, hmm I wonder who’s responsible for that.
And the 5.56 also does more damage than say the kalashnikov because the round fragments upon contact while the tiny pieces bounce around inside the victim's meat flaps. Guess .223's the same. But was this about handguns vs rifles again? A long clip handgun was used in the last shooting. And why pretend to care about potential "collateral damage" in hypothetical scenarios that are low on the probability scale (handgun bullet going through the wall and hitting your neighbor), while ignoring the real and ongoing collateral damage that's happening right now and in the future?
Background checks will not prevent all future shootings. A sane person one day might become insane the next. Anybody, especially armed with a gun, is a potential ticking time bomb. I think my high school history teacher said it best: “So you want to kill yourself or go postal because all these exams and work is stressing you out? Well guess what, you’re not the only one, oh yea.”
They can try to come up with a way to monitor everyone’s thoughts 24/7. It’s almost just easier to outright ban all guns. That or make getting a firearms license way harder to obtain in order to somehow offset the potential insanity lurking in the average person’s mind. So I guess background checks? Throw in a long waiting time and a psych test or something for good measure.
That being said, I’m not really a fan of the second amendment in the modern age of weapons and arguments for and against it have been repeated in this thread. I just favor the against arguments more because the for arguments don’t hold up for me personally, especially the “fight against tyranny” one because of these scenarios that have happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson_(San_Diego_Tank_Rampage)
Saw this on COPS as a kid (I think it was the same episode where they were trying to catch a perp laying rugs on railroad tracks, quality television programming). The narrator was saying the police, armed with guns, couldn’t do anything to stop the tank and they had to wait for it to run out of gas (lol). Mayor considered calling the Marine Corps to bring in a Cobra copter. Granted, the situation was resolved with a gun, but only after the driver messed up and attempted to run over a concrete barrier, getting the tank stuck in the process. He also wasn’t able to lock the hatch from inside so police just opened it and shot him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
The “Killdozer” that inspired a movie. Yup police and SWAT couldn’t stop this one either. Governor wanted to call the National Guard and have them send an Apache armed with a Hellfire missile to take it out (that or just an anti-tank bazooka). Incidentally this one was also resolved with a gun, after the driver committed suicide and shot himself because he got stuck when one of his treads landed into a basement.
If a mental person or an insane civilian in armored vehicles can cause this much damage on such a short rampage with trained personnel armed with guns unable to stop them, then what can armed civilians do against trained, armed, and not-insane personnel in tanks (or helicopters) sent by the government to put down civil unrest? Rather than throwing yourself into the meat grinder (that’d be a sight), your smarter option would be to leave the country as a refugee and hope some general pulls of a successful coup or something.
Home defense might be the only good reason to own a firearm, but there are alternatives to home defense I find reasonable while also considering the probability of such scenarios.
After working graveyard shifts at the ER in an urban high crime area where we had people coming in after being shot almost every night, I’d be fine if nobody had guns. Or the more possible alternative, less people have guns. I doubt anyone would want to raise a child in an environment (or country) where they’re more likely to die in a shooting.
|
|
|
On November 10 2018 04:01 JimmiC wrote:
As far as home defense goes I think a reasonably sized dog would do the trick a lot better than a gun. For one thing they tend to wake up and act quickly which is difficult for a human when the home is invaded, and since they are the weapon they don't need be found loaded and so on. Sure there are dog related injuries and deaths, but most are attributed to a few breeds and are rarely the owner. Dogs also provide many psychological benefits that a gun does not. The other thing a dog can do that a gun doesn't is stop the invasion before it even happens. Most people are going to pick the house without the barking.
A security system is also fairly effective and are becoming more and more reasonable in price. I would also argue that MMA training would be more effective because again you don't have to get the training you always have it, and there is no chance of you accidentally choking out your wife or your child some how using your training to kill themselves.
Also the whole rural areas things confuses me in the sense that sure the cops are a long ways away. But is there really that many rural home invasions? I'd guess that the vast majority happen in urban settings and that is a vast majority of a very small amount to begin with.
I will say that having lived in a very rural part of a highly populated state, I can see the merits of owning a gun. Both for wild animals and for self defense.
And dogs are only passable self defense. You don’t really want a dog that is going to attack unknown people on your property. And it is a crappy existence for the dog too.
|
|
|
On November 10 2018 03:34 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 03:12 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:40 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:13 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. ...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to. It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean? Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet. The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen. 1) Australia already had low homicide rates and were on a 25 year downward trend. Just because a law was passed during that time period doesn't mean it is responsible for the homicide rates. Number of firearms have gone up in the U.S. and homicide rates overall have gone down. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? No; just means correlation doesn't mean it's the main cause. 2) Mass shootings can be reduced or prevented without taking guns away. Switzerland is a prime example of this. 3) Most European nations are not like the United States. Just because we're classified as 1st world countries doesn't mean we deal with the same issues. 1. Well let's just stick to mass shootings then. Surely a drop from "a lot" to "nothing" can't be just a coincidence, right? 2. What are you on about Switzerland has much much harsher gun laws than America. In fact they too recently added stricter gun laws to be in line with EU, and they've also seen a drop in gun violence and general homicides. You can attribute that to "well everyone are seeing lower homicide rates these days" if you want to, but if you're looking for a scapegoat to say "look, no regulations works for them!" then Switzerland ain't it. 3. Now you're just wilfully ignoring everything I just stated about how it's not a culture problem and how this line of thinking has been proven wrong multiple times, including countries where people have provided the exact same excuses before their own regulations were implemented, and saw immediate results.
1. If you're going to argue mass shootings then argue about mass shootings, not about gun violence in general. Mass shootings occur regardless of gun laws (California is a perfect example of this).
2. That's actually false to an extent, in Switzerland it's technically legal to obtain fully automatic weapons that are dated past 1975, and much easier to obtain things such as suppressors and laser sights. In some ways Switzerland is a little bit more lax then certain states in the U.S.
3. No where did I say it's a cultural problem. I said the United States is not Europe. You are being willfully ignorant of the issues of cross comparing countries without accounting for various different geographic and socioeconomic factors. This would be akin to me stating that Europe has issues with radical Islamic terrorism for the past few years while completely ignoring the fact that Europe is geographically a fuck ton closer to various different countries that house radical Islamic terrorist groups.
Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns.
|
|
|
On November 10 2018 04:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 03:34 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 03:12 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:40 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:13 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate.
How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. ...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to. It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean? Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet. The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen. 1) Australia already had low homicide rates and were on a 25 year downward trend. Just because a law was passed during that time period doesn't mean it is responsible for the homicide rates. Number of firearms have gone up in the U.S. and homicide rates overall have gone down. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? No; just means correlation doesn't mean it's the main cause. 2) Mass shootings can be reduced or prevented without taking guns away. Switzerland is a prime example of this. 3) Most European nations are not like the United States. Just because we're classified as 1st world countries doesn't mean we deal with the same issues. 1. Well let's just stick to mass shootings then. Surely a drop from "a lot" to "nothing" can't be just a coincidence, right? 2. What are you on about Switzerland has much much harsher gun laws than America. In fact they too recently added stricter gun laws to be in line with EU, and they've also seen a drop in gun violence and general homicides. You can attribute that to "well everyone are seeing lower homicide rates these days" if you want to, but if you're looking for a scapegoat to say "look, no regulations works for them!" then Switzerland ain't it. 3. Now you're just wilfully ignoring everything I just stated about how it's not a culture problem and how this line of thinking has been proven wrong multiple times, including countries where people have provided the exact same excuses before their own regulations were implemented, and saw immediate results. 1. If you're going to argue mass shootings then argue about mass shootings, not about gun violence in general. Mass shootings occur regardless of gun laws (California is a perfect example of this). 2. That's actually false to an extent, in Switzerland it's technically legal to obtain fully automatic weapons that are dated past 1975, and much easier to obtain things such as suppressors and laser sights. In some ways Switzerland is a little bit more lax then certain states in the U.S. 3. No where did I say it's a cultural problem. I said the United States is not Europe. You are being willfully ignorant of the issues of cross comparing countries without accounting for various different geographic and socioeconomic factors. Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns. Cali is not a great example of it, they don't have what people in this thread are looking for. If it is not a "cultural problem" are you saying the mass shootings and violence are good? He might want all guns banned, but he is willing to COMPROMISE a word you write but don't seem to understand. That being said to me it seams more like he wants what he has stated he wants. It is so weird to me that A) so many americans think there is this clandestine group of liberals wandering around just waiting to snatch up all there guns. B) why there are guns are so precious to begin with. I go to ridiculous lengths to keep my kids safe with baby proofing and so on, kinda crazy but I mean it is my kid. Having a gun, especially a hand gun makes it so much less safe. And before you say, but I keep mine in a locked safe with ammo separate and blah blah. Exactly how are you going to use it for self defense then?
California has....
1) Permit required to purchase
2) Firearm registration
3) Assault weapon laws
4) Magazine Capacity limits
5) Waiting Periods
6) Background Checks
7) Red Flag Laws
Literally every single thing that everyone has asked for. And yet the mass shooting still occurred. Which should probably tell you that laws aren't going to be the only thing you need to change in order to prevent mass shootings, and in fact, without changing the culture and education around firearms, improving mental health, etc. these terrible things are still going to exist.
Make no mistake, I am not against gun control. I've very clearly detailed what I support in terms of gun control and gun laws. What I don't like are people who are masquerading as gun control advocates, and really are people looking to outright ban guns. That's disingenuous. If you are straight up against firearms, just plainly state you'd rather see them banned. Don't try and act like you are 'compromising' when ultimately your goal is to get rid of all firearms.
|
On November 10 2018 03:51 riotjune wrote:And the 5.56 also does more damage than say the kalashnikov because the round fragments upon contact while the tiny pieces bounce around inside the victim's meat flaps. Guess .223's the same.
Just felt like correcting this (because I can). 5.56 is a military type ammo and does not fragment upon contact. it is strictly forbidden in the Geneva convention (It makes putting people back together a lot more difficult).
.223 is the civilian type (same size, a bit less gunpowder). These are used for hunting and can be bought as a type that fragments upon impact (for hunting it's preferred as the animal dies a lot sooner).
|
United States42772 Posts
I don’t think gun control would especially work in the US, mostly because the US is filled with Americans. American exceptionalism is actually a kind of thing in my experience. Just not a good thing.
|
|
|
On November 10 2018 03:34 Plansix wrote:
You folks have come across the problem with discussion gun laws with superstartran. No matter what you propose, he will never agree that anything will work. The Swiss gun laws are a prime example. No matter how you frame it or say the laws could be adjusted to fit the US, he won't agree it would be acceptable. As far as I can tell, the only thing that is acceptable is no change to anything.
It's also really boring to read. Nothing is really changing in anyone's posts its just the same shit over and over again.
On November 10 2018 04:59 KwarK wrote:
I don’t think gun control would especially work in the US, mostly because the US is filled with Americans. American exceptionalism is actually a kind of thing in my experience. Just not a good thing.
I never really took it to be an entirely positive descriptor personally. Especially considering the kind of people who would be immigrating out of their countries to come to the federation.
|
On November 10 2018 04:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 03:34 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 03:12 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:40 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:13 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate.
How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. ...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to. It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean? Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet. The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen. 1) Australia already had low homicide rates and were on a 25 year downward trend. Just because a law was passed during that time period doesn't mean it is responsible for the homicide rates. Number of firearms have gone up in the U.S. and homicide rates overall have gone down. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? No; just means correlation doesn't mean it's the main cause. 2) Mass shootings can be reduced or prevented without taking guns away. Switzerland is a prime example of this. 3) Most European nations are not like the United States. Just because we're classified as 1st world countries doesn't mean we deal with the same issues. 1. Well let's just stick to mass shootings then. Surely a drop from "a lot" to "nothing" can't be just a coincidence, right? 2. What are you on about Switzerland has much much harsher gun laws than America. In fact they too recently added stricter gun laws to be in line with EU, and they've also seen a drop in gun violence and general homicides. You can attribute that to "well everyone are seeing lower homicide rates these days" if you want to, but if you're looking for a scapegoat to say "look, no regulations works for them!" then Switzerland ain't it. 3. Now you're just wilfully ignoring everything I just stated about how it's not a culture problem and how this line of thinking has been proven wrong multiple times, including countries where people have provided the exact same excuses before their own regulations were implemented, and saw immediate results. 1. If you're going to argue mass shootings then argue about mass shootings, not about gun violence in general. Mass shootings occur regardless of gun laws (California is a perfect example of this). 2. That's actually false to an extent, in Switzerland it's technically legal to obtain fully automatic weapons that are dated past 1975, and much easier to obtain things such as suppressors and laser sights. In some ways Switzerland is a little bit more lax then certain states in the U.S. 3. No where did I say it's a cultural problem. I said the United States is not Europe. You are being willfully ignorant of the issues of cross comparing countries without accounting for various different geographic and socioeconomic factors. Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns. Cali is not a great example of it, they don't have what people in this thread are looking for. If it is not a "cultural problem" are you saying the mass shootings and violence are good? He might want all guns banned, but he is willing to COMPROMISE a word you write but don't seem to understand. That being said to me it seams more like he wants what he has stated he wants. It is so weird to me that A) so many americans think there is this clandestine group of liberals wandering around just waiting to snatch up all there guns. B) why there are guns are so precious to begin with. I go to ridiculous lengths to keep my kids safe with baby proofing and so on, kinda crazy but I mean it is my kid. Having a gun, especially a hand gun makes it so much less safe. And before you say, but I keep mine in a locked safe with ammo separate and blah blah. Exactly how are you going to use it for self defense then?
On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns.
let me quickly jump back onto that High horse and reassure you I do NOT want all guns banned (something I have repeatedly claimed before). I own several, and plan to buy more. I think weapons for hunting and sporting is excellent, provided you're qualified.
For instance, I just joined a gun club. I am allowed to train there with the pistols they provide, but I am not allowed to buy my own until I've practiced regularly for 6 months and finished a competition without being disqualified (as DQs are generally due to safety). For rifles it's 2 years (Largely thanks to Breivik). These are good rules and makes me not have to worry about a disgruntled college showing up to work to deliver acute led poisoning to everyone.
Likewise I have a shotgun for hunting. I had to go through mandatory theoretical and practical hunting training before I was allowed to buy it, and they are very restricted in what they can do. Again, these are all good rules.
I don't want to ban guns by any means, I want them to be restricted. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept to understand. Some people immediately take the stance of "You don't agree with me so you want to ban all guns!". No, keep your guns. We want to ban crazy Ivan from picking them up at the local Walmart and shooting up a school the next day.
|
On November 10 2018 04:58 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 03:51 riotjune wrote:And the 5.56 also does more damage than say the kalashnikov because the round fragments upon contact while the tiny pieces bounce around inside the victim's meat flaps. Guess .223's the same. Just felt like correcting this (because I can). 5.56 is a military type ammo and does not fragment upon contact. it is strictly forbidden in the Geneva convention (It makes putting people back together a lot more difficult). .223 is the civilian type (same size, a bit less gunpowder). These are used for hunting and can be bought as a type that fragments upon impact (for hunting it's preferred as the animal dies a lot sooner).
Damn, either my former drill sergeant was feeding us bad information or the fact he was lecturing us during sleep deprivation training made me remember things wrong.
|
On November 10 2018 05:08 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 04:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 03:34 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 03:12 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:40 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:13 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:
[quote]
How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. ...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to. It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean? Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet. The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen. 1) Australia already had low homicide rates and were on a 25 year downward trend. Just because a law was passed during that time period doesn't mean it is responsible for the homicide rates. Number of firearms have gone up in the U.S. and homicide rates overall have gone down. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? No; just means correlation doesn't mean it's the main cause. 2) Mass shootings can be reduced or prevented without taking guns away. Switzerland is a prime example of this. 3) Most European nations are not like the United States. Just because we're classified as 1st world countries doesn't mean we deal with the same issues. 1. Well let's just stick to mass shootings then. Surely a drop from "a lot" to "nothing" can't be just a coincidence, right? 2. What are you on about Switzerland has much much harsher gun laws than America. In fact they too recently added stricter gun laws to be in line with EU, and they've also seen a drop in gun violence and general homicides. You can attribute that to "well everyone are seeing lower homicide rates these days" if you want to, but if you're looking for a scapegoat to say "look, no regulations works for them!" then Switzerland ain't it. 3. Now you're just wilfully ignoring everything I just stated about how it's not a culture problem and how this line of thinking has been proven wrong multiple times, including countries where people have provided the exact same excuses before their own regulations were implemented, and saw immediate results. 1. If you're going to argue mass shootings then argue about mass shootings, not about gun violence in general. Mass shootings occur regardless of gun laws (California is a perfect example of this). 2. That's actually false to an extent, in Switzerland it's technically legal to obtain fully automatic weapons that are dated past 1975, and much easier to obtain things such as suppressors and laser sights. In some ways Switzerland is a little bit more lax then certain states in the U.S. 3. No where did I say it's a cultural problem. I said the United States is not Europe. You are being willfully ignorant of the issues of cross comparing countries without accounting for various different geographic and socioeconomic factors. Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns. Cali is not a great example of it, they don't have what people in this thread are looking for. If it is not a "cultural problem" are you saying the mass shootings and violence are good? He might want all guns banned, but he is willing to COMPROMISE a word you write but don't seem to understand. That being said to me it seams more like he wants what he has stated he wants. It is so weird to me that A) so many americans think there is this clandestine group of liberals wandering around just waiting to snatch up all there guns. B) why there are guns are so precious to begin with. I go to ridiculous lengths to keep my kids safe with baby proofing and so on, kinda crazy but I mean it is my kid. Having a gun, especially a hand gun makes it so much less safe. And before you say, but I keep mine in a locked safe with ammo separate and blah blah. Exactly how are you going to use it for self defense then? Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns.
let me quickly jump back onto that High horse and reassure you I do NOT want all guns banned (something I have repeatedly claimed before). I own several, and plan to buy more. I think weapons for hunting and sporting is excellent, provided you're qualified. For instance, I just joined a gun club. I am allowed to train there with the pistols they provide, but I am not allowed to buy my own until I've practiced regularly for 6 months and finished a competition without being disqualified (as DQs are generally due to safety). For rifles it's 2 years (Largely thanks to Breivik). These are good rules and makes me not have to worry about a disgruntled college showing up to work to deliver acute led poisoning to everyone. Likewise I have a shotgun for hunting. I had to go through mandatory theoretical and practical hunting training before I was allowed to buy it, and they are very restricted in what they can do. Again, these are all good rules. I don't want to ban guns by any means, I want them to be restricted. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept to understand. Some people immediately take the stance of "You don't agree with me so you want to ban all guns!". No, keep your guns. We want to ban crazy Ivan from picking them up at the local Walmart and shooting up a school the next day.
Which should have occurred because the Red Flag law in California DID flag the shooter. This was not the case of poor laws; this was a case of bad education on how identifying someone that is suffering from a mental illness. You can enact all the laws you want, laws don't solve the underlying issue.
Remember, California has probably some of the STRICTEST laws in the nation, pretty much in line with what almost everyone here has asked for. And yet a mass shooting still occurred, because at the end of the day, when a human being is set out to kill other human beings, they will find a way to do it.
|
On November 10 2018 05:18 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 05:08 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 04:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 03:34 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 03:12 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:40 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:13 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact.
For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. ...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to. It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean? Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet. The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen. 1) Australia already had low homicide rates and were on a 25 year downward trend. Just because a law was passed during that time period doesn't mean it is responsible for the homicide rates. Number of firearms have gone up in the U.S. and homicide rates overall have gone down. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? No; just means correlation doesn't mean it's the main cause. 2) Mass shootings can be reduced or prevented without taking guns away. Switzerland is a prime example of this. 3) Most European nations are not like the United States. Just because we're classified as 1st world countries doesn't mean we deal with the same issues. 1. Well let's just stick to mass shootings then. Surely a drop from "a lot" to "nothing" can't be just a coincidence, right? 2. What are you on about Switzerland has much much harsher gun laws than America. In fact they too recently added stricter gun laws to be in line with EU, and they've also seen a drop in gun violence and general homicides. You can attribute that to "well everyone are seeing lower homicide rates these days" if you want to, but if you're looking for a scapegoat to say "look, no regulations works for them!" then Switzerland ain't it. 3. Now you're just wilfully ignoring everything I just stated about how it's not a culture problem and how this line of thinking has been proven wrong multiple times, including countries where people have provided the exact same excuses before their own regulations were implemented, and saw immediate results. 1. If you're going to argue mass shootings then argue about mass shootings, not about gun violence in general. Mass shootings occur regardless of gun laws (California is a perfect example of this). 2. That's actually false to an extent, in Switzerland it's technically legal to obtain fully automatic weapons that are dated past 1975, and much easier to obtain things such as suppressors and laser sights. In some ways Switzerland is a little bit more lax then certain states in the U.S. 3. No where did I say it's a cultural problem. I said the United States is not Europe. You are being willfully ignorant of the issues of cross comparing countries without accounting for various different geographic and socioeconomic factors. Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns. Cali is not a great example of it, they don't have what people in this thread are looking for. If it is not a "cultural problem" are you saying the mass shootings and violence are good? He might want all guns banned, but he is willing to COMPROMISE a word you write but don't seem to understand. That being said to me it seams more like he wants what he has stated he wants. It is so weird to me that A) so many americans think there is this clandestine group of liberals wandering around just waiting to snatch up all there guns. B) why there are guns are so precious to begin with. I go to ridiculous lengths to keep my kids safe with baby proofing and so on, kinda crazy but I mean it is my kid. Having a gun, especially a hand gun makes it so much less safe. And before you say, but I keep mine in a locked safe with ammo separate and blah blah. Exactly how are you going to use it for self defense then? On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns.
let me quickly jump back onto that High horse and reassure you I do NOT want all guns banned (something I have repeatedly claimed before). I own several, and plan to buy more. I think weapons for hunting and sporting is excellent, provided you're qualified. For instance, I just joined a gun club. I am allowed to train there with the pistols they provide, but I am not allowed to buy my own until I've practiced regularly for 6 months and finished a competition without being disqualified (as DQs are generally due to safety). For rifles it's 2 years (Largely thanks to Breivik). These are good rules and makes me not have to worry about a disgruntled college showing up to work to deliver acute led poisoning to everyone. Likewise I have a shotgun for hunting. I had to go through mandatory theoretical and practical hunting training before I was allowed to buy it, and they are very restricted in what they can do. Again, these are all good rules. I don't want to ban guns by any means, I want them to be restricted. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept to understand. Some people immediately take the stance of "You don't agree with me so you want to ban all guns!". No, keep your guns. We want to ban crazy Ivan from picking them up at the local Walmart and shooting up a school the next day. Which should have occurred because the Red Flag law in California DID flag the shooter. This was not the case of poor laws; this was a case of bad education on how identifying someone that is suffering from a mental illness. You can enact all the laws you want, laws don't solve the underlying issue.
I was being hyperbolic there. I was not aware of crazy Ivan shooting up a school with a Walmart gun. But seeing as my hyperbolic was immediately met with an example of this happening, I'm pretty sure I proved my point.
Next time the shooter won't have a history of mental illness. What's stopping him then?
|
On November 10 2018 05:23 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 05:18 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 05:08 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 04:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 03:34 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 03:12 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:40 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 02:13 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to. It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean? Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet. The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen. 1) Australia already had low homicide rates and were on a 25 year downward trend. Just because a law was passed during that time period doesn't mean it is responsible for the homicide rates. Number of firearms have gone up in the U.S. and homicide rates overall have gone down. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? No; just means correlation doesn't mean it's the main cause. 2) Mass shootings can be reduced or prevented without taking guns away. Switzerland is a prime example of this. 3) Most European nations are not like the United States. Just because we're classified as 1st world countries doesn't mean we deal with the same issues. 1. Well let's just stick to mass shootings then. Surely a drop from "a lot" to "nothing" can't be just a coincidence, right? 2. What are you on about Switzerland has much much harsher gun laws than America. In fact they too recently added stricter gun laws to be in line with EU, and they've also seen a drop in gun violence and general homicides. You can attribute that to "well everyone are seeing lower homicide rates these days" if you want to, but if you're looking for a scapegoat to say "look, no regulations works for them!" then Switzerland ain't it. 3. Now you're just wilfully ignoring everything I just stated about how it's not a culture problem and how this line of thinking has been proven wrong multiple times, including countries where people have provided the exact same excuses before their own regulations were implemented, and saw immediate results. 1. If you're going to argue mass shootings then argue about mass shootings, not about gun violence in general. Mass shootings occur regardless of gun laws (California is a perfect example of this). 2. That's actually false to an extent, in Switzerland it's technically legal to obtain fully automatic weapons that are dated past 1975, and much easier to obtain things such as suppressors and laser sights. In some ways Switzerland is a little bit more lax then certain states in the U.S. 3. No where did I say it's a cultural problem. I said the United States is not Europe. You are being willfully ignorant of the issues of cross comparing countries without accounting for various different geographic and socioeconomic factors. Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns. Cali is not a great example of it, they don't have what people in this thread are looking for. If it is not a "cultural problem" are you saying the mass shootings and violence are good? He might want all guns banned, but he is willing to COMPROMISE a word you write but don't seem to understand. That being said to me it seams more like he wants what he has stated he wants. It is so weird to me that A) so many americans think there is this clandestine group of liberals wandering around just waiting to snatch up all there guns. B) why there are guns are so precious to begin with. I go to ridiculous lengths to keep my kids safe with baby proofing and so on, kinda crazy but I mean it is my kid. Having a gun, especially a hand gun makes it so much less safe. And before you say, but I keep mine in a locked safe with ammo separate and blah blah. Exactly how are you going to use it for self defense then? On November 10 2018 04:39 superstartran wrote:Why don't you just get off your high horse and just straight up say you'd rather have all guns banned? Stop pretending that you're about gun control and that you'd rather just get rid of guns.
let me quickly jump back onto that High horse and reassure you I do NOT want all guns banned (something I have repeatedly claimed before). I own several, and plan to buy more. I think weapons for hunting and sporting is excellent, provided you're qualified. For instance, I just joined a gun club. I am allowed to train there with the pistols they provide, but I am not allowed to buy my own until I've practiced regularly for 6 months and finished a competition without being disqualified (as DQs are generally due to safety). For rifles it's 2 years (Largely thanks to Breivik). These are good rules and makes me not have to worry about a disgruntled college showing up to work to deliver acute led poisoning to everyone. Likewise I have a shotgun for hunting. I had to go through mandatory theoretical and practical hunting training before I was allowed to buy it, and they are very restricted in what they can do. Again, these are all good rules. I don't want to ban guns by any means, I want them to be restricted. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept to understand. Some people immediately take the stance of "You don't agree with me so you want to ban all guns!". No, keep your guns. We want to ban crazy Ivan from picking them up at the local Walmart and shooting up a school the next day. Which should have occurred because the Red Flag law in California DID flag the shooter. This was not the case of poor laws; this was a case of bad education on how identifying someone that is suffering from a mental illness. You can enact all the laws you want, laws don't solve the underlying issue. I was being hyperbolic there. I was not aware of crazy Ivan shooting up a school with a Walmart gun. But seeing as my hyperbolic was immediately met with an example of this happening, I'm pretty sure I proved my point. Next time the shooter won't have a history of mental illness. What's stopping him then?
Nothing. Because someone intent on harming others is going to cause harm regardless. We can minimize damage of such events though without infringing on the rights of others. This has been absolutely proven to be true in some places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
