|
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 27 2019 18:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 15:59 Jockmcplop wrote:
I still think the most effective legislation for avoiding *certain types* of crime and tragedy would be a mandatory 28 day waiting period on all firearms purchases.
28 days is an awful long time for people suffering from a mental health crisis. It would certainly help minimize suicide risk from firearms, but also crimes of passion and mental health related murder/mass murder.
I've yet to hear a single good argument against this idea for law.
The devil in this case, is not in the details. there are good reasons for why this alone is no where near enough to properly reduce gun violence though. its a good place to start i guess but the amount of firearms already in circulation nullifies the need to purchase a lot. also some maniacs such as the christchurch shooter have the foresight to plan in advance anyway
Yeah I agree, but the reason its a good place to start is that there are no discernable negative effects (except ease of gun sales which negatively effect manufacturers) and the fact that it will have a significant reducing effect on certain types of crime.
The problem with your view on this is that you are lumping all gun crime together as one single type of statistic. You won't be able to enact legislation that combats all types of gun crime equally and simultaneously. It can't be done in the US because to do that you have to ban guns, basically, which is pretty much impossible.
That's the reason why a package of legislation aimed at reducing specific types of gun violence/accidents/suicide without banning weapons is going to be the most effective and realistic.
1: Mandatory waiting period - reduces mental health related crime and suicide. It would have a real impact imo.
2: Laws that demand proper care and attention to your own weapon. If a crime is committed with your gun you are responsible unless you can prove your weapon was safely locked away and stolen from a safe/locked box. If a kid gets your gun that was lying on a table loaded and accidentally shoots themselves/someone else you go to jail. This would not only reduce thefts of weapons that are then used in crime, but it would also reduce accidents.
I'm sure people can think of other ideas along these lines.
The idea here is not that I don't think it would be good to ban guns. I can see the opposition that has, so lets try and reduce crime in other ways, by tightening up current laws to demand that gun sellers and owners treat weapons with respect and act responsibly.
|
On March 27 2019 09:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 07:11 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 27 2019 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On March 27 2019 00:57 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 22:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 13:29 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 09:21 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 08:32 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon. I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such. In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century. So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things> 1. show off 2. feel empowered 3. collection 4. mass murder Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media. As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever. Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does. Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all. I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it. On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that. I'm gona take a swing at this because I think its pretty genuine, I won't go the full mile but at least halfway maybe. I think the first amendment is the more popular one. The second one is more controversial but I believe thats just because of the media attention its given. I think a conventional civil war is ridiculous but I don't really understand where people get this fantasy that bombers tanks or helicopters even matter in an asymmetrical war. There are a lot softer targets an insurgency or civil unrest would go after that the military can't all protect that would achieve the same means. Take out a few bridges a few roads and a few water treatment plants and a major city becomes a tomb of people dying of starvation thirst and disease in a matter of weeks. California needs to pipe in large quantities of drinkable water for their farms and people. The countrywide logistics networks are a matter of public record and while Joe hilbilly may not have the firepower to face an armored division he can stop the easy flow of goods through the nation with the materials on his farm. ANYWAY, You miss on a lot about hunting and why it feeds into the gun culture of America. I watched a harem and a rafter cross the road today. That would be a group of pheasants and turkeys. The State departments of natural resources get a lot of their funding from selling licenses to hunt these animals that they reinvest into habitat and conservation efforts. (pheasants forever shoutout) I have to pay hundreds of years for the whitetail deer licenses every year regardless of if I see anything or not. 330 thousand were harvested just last year in Wisconsin which narrowly went trump. I'm not even going into the dozens or so of other animal herds that the government needs to keep under control that it also sells licenses for the public to hunt. And don't get me started on the monster that is the wild boar population in the middle and southern parts of the central united states coming in the next decade or so. handguns are actually the real target for anyone who wants lowered gun violence. They're cheap, easy to illegally manufacture and easy to conceal. Just to clarify, you need semi automatic weapons to hunt game ? Hunting is hugely popular where I am from. I have never taken to it personally but I many of the private schoolers I went to school with are scions of Daedalus or political families that own lands as far as the eye can see. Hunting and Equestrian activity are like the only thing they ever do. Most of them rely on bolt or lever action guns to hunt partly because thats where they feel the real skill is involved, and partly because its well more than they need. Ive grown up around plenty of wild boars and jackals (for populations that need control) in my time. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need the same mass murder weapons to keep habitats under control. So thats hunting angle is kinda bullshit if you are suggesting (which is why I asked for the clarification) that people who hunt would like unrestricted access to a weapon of choice.. You can hunt perfectly fine and not need military style weapons to do it. Like theres so many things you can do even with Bolt rifles for example where you restrict all makers to have the bolt removable without having to pull triggers would probably save a 5 year old somewhere. It might not sound like a big deal. But if it isnt then why not implement it. But no one is even will to talk about stuff like that. Bottom line is the only real argument you have against gun control ion mass kill potential weapons. + Show Spoiler +(and I think its really silly to get into specifics of what functions specific parts of guns perform and how different modifications do what. If you have experience with guns you know better than to argue such technicalities) is "Fuck off, I like guns" which is not a great argument but its the only one youve got and thats fine, keep the guns that you can have fun with and maybe stay away from the mass murder weapons. Sticking to the former might save a few lives. And if your going to do some militaristic uprising against a tyrant at that point you might be better of using guns that actually require some mastery then trying your luck with semis that you will probably never bother to learn to use and get wrecked doing it. All that fantasy fanfic guerrilla shit Falling was talking about can be achieved without the need for semis and autos. Please don't attribute arguments to me that I didn't make. I'm not going to address them but I'm just saying its really rude and insulting. Hunting in America is a completely different world than what you're talking about. Its most definitely, from the nations birth, an activity that the poor and middle rual class has embraced. Sons and daughters are taken into the woods in their early or pre-teen years, given a gun, left alone in the cold and told to kill something. You don't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt. Birds, for example, are incredibly hard to hit and shooting at them while they're still on the ground is a huge no no but pumps are almost as fast and common. I give AZ shit but the 5 round marker they set is actually fairly accurate for when it becomes more then what you should need. A bolt action is good (my uncle still uses his dads moisin nagant from the war) and my lever action is pretty reliable. But you're still talking about millions and millions of guns that are nowhere near capable of a mass shooting we see in the media. The recoil from the type of guns would make it impossible. If you wanted to sheer off the hunting community from the gun control debate you'd see arguments for how large the calibler of a gun (how big the bullets it shoots) or how small (so .22 rifles are okay). Bolts are already removable and all weapons are military style murder weapons, thats an argument that makes you look bad and boils down to "scary weapons bad". I didnt attribute it, I asked for clarification. Because you mentioned the hunting community without really specifiying what the hunting community actually employs or doesnt. And at the end of the day, it doesnt matter whether its a rich people or a poor people activity. The bottom line on what kind of guns you need for hunting remains the same. I strongly disagree that all weapons have the same mass kill potential, yes with someone that has a high degree of skill they could get the same result but looking at the kind of people commiting murder acts where they get a high kill count I dont see them as having been particularly skilled and still doing a pretty good job. Which means scary weapons are bad. You have no need for them. Well other than and ill say it again "Hey I like scary weapons, they cool". And mind you, I didnt say just removable bolts. I said removable bolts without having to pull the trigger to remove them. I know all bolts are removable, its insulting that you didnt bother to respect the comment enough to pay attention to that comment. Its a small nuanced example of something that could go a long way and not hard to do. You said that I needed mass murder weapons and that my only argument was "fuck off I like guns" Thats not asking for clarification thats making someones argument for them so they look like shit. I was asking for clarification in my early post to understand what "confiscation" you were afraid would happen with guns if there was a registry. I'm still hoping to get some clarification. I thought I made some really good points about how we could make small changes that would keep pretty much all parties happy. [ + Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On March 25 2019 12:18 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 25 2019 01:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:
I mean what your getting at has nothing to do with what were talking about. And you have had to move the goal posts pretty far. Or please feel free to show how the "evil car loan" business would take over the gun market and take peoples guns who need them for work and blah blah. But sure I'm all for regulating high interest loans on anything... and guns of course because they are even more dangerous.
You are getting ridiculous.
You are the one who keeps moving the conversation away from what we're talking about. Complaining now that we've gotten there is whats ridiculous. And I have no confidence that shambala understood my post in the slightest so I'm not going to respond to that on grounds of it not being worth either of our efforts. And catdog I didn't mean that literally. I was being facetious in turning a phrase into another phrase for my point. Your post mentioned that you have permits for guns, and that you have a sheriff that urges people to get firearm training. Those are both factual statements that don't explicitly get at a a point. So what is your point? I get you don't want a registry because of confiscation... but what confiscation are you worried about? I've known plenty of gun owners, I've never heard of a gun being taken from someone who didn't do something illegal with it or was mentally unstable. The only situation in which I could imagine a gun being confiscated was if someone took out a loan to buy a gun and couldn't finish paying the loan (much like a car get's repossessed). That is one reason I made my comparison to cars. If you buy a car (or gun) and don't pay for it with the expectation you get to keep it, that's stealing. The way in which a car/gun comparison is very legitimate in regard to gun violence is in the way that both things can be very dangerous and lethal when use inappropriately. The way we reconcile that danger in American culture is to require training, age limits, a registry, insurance, and getting a license. This way if an individual is irresponsible with their car they are held to account for it, and if they cause damage insurance pays for the cost of that damage. People are required to demonstrate responsibility in order for the privilege to own and drive a car. Why should this be different for a gun?My point is that by making the same true for guns we would probably have less gun deaths, accidents or otherwise. This is one very legitimate way we could address gun violence in America. I assumed the question was in bad faith and/or facious. I'm not going to go "herp derp government gona just come and take my guns they don't want me to have no mo" just so you can smugly point to me and call me a paranoid hillbilly. Its a painfully obvious leading question that I don't think anyone seriously expects to me answered. But if you're serious I would be afraid of the government confiscating automatic weapons from people for having automatic weapons. That sounds like the dumbest move ever that would most certainly lead to a standoff with a mentally disturbed guy that just happens to have an automatic rifle. That's what I'm afraid of. I'm going to line out point by point on your suggestion in that paragraph starting with "the way we reconcile" 1. training as in gun safety that they already require for a hunting license? 2. age limits like an age limit to take the gun safety class said above or to purchase a gun or get a hunting license? 3. A registry, I'm going to spend my goodwill for making this post by legitimately asking you what you think a registry means. Are people expected to register all their guns? Are people just going to have the guns they buy registered? How is this registry going to be enforced? 4. Insurance so connected to above how are you going to enforce insurance? Are people going to be expected to get liability insurance like cars? Are criminals going to be expected to get insurance for the guns they arn't suppose to have to commit the crimes that they use their guns on? 5. A license So people are expected to have a license to buy guns or carry guns. How is this not a CC license or a license to purchase that I said in my post that I already have? like I say that I've never seen a serious gun registry proposal or a universal background check proposal because they either fall under the above or fall into issues with peoples medical history.
But isn't that precisely why there needs to be a confiscation of automatic rifles? If you couldn't enforce a law because crazy doesn't want to part with his favorite very deadly toy, doesn't that show how dangerous these things are and how much you need a more serious regulation of those? Doesn't that fear show how much of a problem the general accessibility is and how much defusing this bomb would help reduce the number of victims of future bloodbaths?
I get that you want to let sleeping dogs lie, but in the US there's a massacre every year, half the dogs are awake anyways.
|
On March 27 2019 18:56 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 09:14 Sermokala wrote:On March 27 2019 07:11 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 27 2019 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On March 27 2019 00:57 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 22:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 13:29 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 09:21 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 08:32 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon. I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such. In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century. So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things> 1. show off 2. feel empowered 3. collection 4. mass murder Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media. As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever. Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does. Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all. I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it. On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that. I'm gona take a swing at this because I think its pretty genuine, I won't go the full mile but at least halfway maybe. I think the first amendment is the more popular one. The second one is more controversial but I believe thats just because of the media attention its given. I think a conventional civil war is ridiculous but I don't really understand where people get this fantasy that bombers tanks or helicopters even matter in an asymmetrical war. There are a lot softer targets an insurgency or civil unrest would go after that the military can't all protect that would achieve the same means. Take out a few bridges a few roads and a few water treatment plants and a major city becomes a tomb of people dying of starvation thirst and disease in a matter of weeks. California needs to pipe in large quantities of drinkable water for their farms and people. The countrywide logistics networks are a matter of public record and while Joe hilbilly may not have the firepower to face an armored division he can stop the easy flow of goods through the nation with the materials on his farm. ANYWAY, You miss on a lot about hunting and why it feeds into the gun culture of America. I watched a harem and a rafter cross the road today. That would be a group of pheasants and turkeys. The State departments of natural resources get a lot of their funding from selling licenses to hunt these animals that they reinvest into habitat and conservation efforts. (pheasants forever shoutout) I have to pay hundreds of years for the whitetail deer licenses every year regardless of if I see anything or not. 330 thousand were harvested just last year in Wisconsin which narrowly went trump. I'm not even going into the dozens or so of other animal herds that the government needs to keep under control that it also sells licenses for the public to hunt. And don't get me started on the monster that is the wild boar population in the middle and southern parts of the central united states coming in the next decade or so. handguns are actually the real target for anyone who wants lowered gun violence. They're cheap, easy to illegally manufacture and easy to conceal. Just to clarify, you need semi automatic weapons to hunt game ? Hunting is hugely popular where I am from. I have never taken to it personally but I many of the private schoolers I went to school with are scions of Daedalus or political families that own lands as far as the eye can see. Hunting and Equestrian activity are like the only thing they ever do. Most of them rely on bolt or lever action guns to hunt partly because thats where they feel the real skill is involved, and partly because its well more than they need. Ive grown up around plenty of wild boars and jackals (for populations that need control) in my time. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need the same mass murder weapons to keep habitats under control. So thats hunting angle is kinda bullshit if you are suggesting (which is why I asked for the clarification) that people who hunt would like unrestricted access to a weapon of choice.. You can hunt perfectly fine and not need military style weapons to do it. Like theres so many things you can do even with Bolt rifles for example where you restrict all makers to have the bolt removable without having to pull triggers would probably save a 5 year old somewhere. It might not sound like a big deal. But if it isnt then why not implement it. But no one is even will to talk about stuff like that. Bottom line is the only real argument you have against gun control ion mass kill potential weapons. + Show Spoiler +(and I think its really silly to get into specifics of what functions specific parts of guns perform and how different modifications do what. If you have experience with guns you know better than to argue such technicalities) is "Fuck off, I like guns" which is not a great argument but its the only one youve got and thats fine, keep the guns that you can have fun with and maybe stay away from the mass murder weapons. Sticking to the former might save a few lives. And if your going to do some militaristic uprising against a tyrant at that point you might be better of using guns that actually require some mastery then trying your luck with semis that you will probably never bother to learn to use and get wrecked doing it. All that fantasy fanfic guerrilla shit Falling was talking about can be achieved without the need for semis and autos. Please don't attribute arguments to me that I didn't make. I'm not going to address them but I'm just saying its really rude and insulting. Hunting in America is a completely different world than what you're talking about. Its most definitely, from the nations birth, an activity that the poor and middle rual class has embraced. Sons and daughters are taken into the woods in their early or pre-teen years, given a gun, left alone in the cold and told to kill something. You don't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt. Birds, for example, are incredibly hard to hit and shooting at them while they're still on the ground is a huge no no but pumps are almost as fast and common. I give AZ shit but the 5 round marker they set is actually fairly accurate for when it becomes more then what you should need. A bolt action is good (my uncle still uses his dads moisin nagant from the war) and my lever action is pretty reliable. But you're still talking about millions and millions of guns that are nowhere near capable of a mass shooting we see in the media. The recoil from the type of guns would make it impossible. If you wanted to sheer off the hunting community from the gun control debate you'd see arguments for how large the calibler of a gun (how big the bullets it shoots) or how small (so .22 rifles are okay). Bolts are already removable and all weapons are military style murder weapons, thats an argument that makes you look bad and boils down to "scary weapons bad". I didnt attribute it, I asked for clarification. Because you mentioned the hunting community without really specifiying what the hunting community actually employs or doesnt. And at the end of the day, it doesnt matter whether its a rich people or a poor people activity. The bottom line on what kind of guns you need for hunting remains the same. I strongly disagree that all weapons have the same mass kill potential, yes with someone that has a high degree of skill they could get the same result but looking at the kind of people commiting murder acts where they get a high kill count I dont see them as having been particularly skilled and still doing a pretty good job. Which means scary weapons are bad. You have no need for them. Well other than and ill say it again "Hey I like scary weapons, they cool". And mind you, I didnt say just removable bolts. I said removable bolts without having to pull the trigger to remove them. I know all bolts are removable, its insulting that you didnt bother to respect the comment enough to pay attention to that comment. Its a small nuanced example of something that could go a long way and not hard to do. You said that I needed mass murder weapons and that my only argument was "fuck off I like guns" Thats not asking for clarification thats making someones argument for them so they look like shit. I was asking for clarification in my early post to understand what "confiscation" you were afraid would happen with guns if there was a registry. I'm still hoping to get some clarification. I thought I made some really good points about how we could make small changes that would keep pretty much all parties happy. [ + Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On March 25 2019 12:18 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 25 2019 01:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:
I mean what your getting at has nothing to do with what were talking about. And you have had to move the goal posts pretty far. Or please feel free to show how the "evil car loan" business would take over the gun market and take peoples guns who need them for work and blah blah. But sure I'm all for regulating high interest loans on anything... and guns of course because they are even more dangerous.
You are getting ridiculous.
You are the one who keeps moving the conversation away from what we're talking about. Complaining now that we've gotten there is whats ridiculous. And I have no confidence that shambala understood my post in the slightest so I'm not going to respond to that on grounds of it not being worth either of our efforts. And catdog I didn't mean that literally. I was being facetious in turning a phrase into another phrase for my point. Your post mentioned that you have permits for guns, and that you have a sheriff that urges people to get firearm training. Those are both factual statements that don't explicitly get at a a point. So what is your point? I get you don't want a registry because of confiscation... but what confiscation are you worried about? I've known plenty of gun owners, I've never heard of a gun being taken from someone who didn't do something illegal with it or was mentally unstable. The only situation in which I could imagine a gun being confiscated was if someone took out a loan to buy a gun and couldn't finish paying the loan (much like a car get's repossessed). That is one reason I made my comparison to cars. If you buy a car (or gun) and don't pay for it with the expectation you get to keep it, that's stealing. The way in which a car/gun comparison is very legitimate in regard to gun violence is in the way that both things can be very dangerous and lethal when use inappropriately. The way we reconcile that danger in American culture is to require training, age limits, a registry, insurance, and getting a license. This way if an individual is irresponsible with their car they are held to account for it, and if they cause damage insurance pays for the cost of that damage. People are required to demonstrate responsibility in order for the privilege to own and drive a car. Why should this be different for a gun?My point is that by making the same true for guns we would probably have less gun deaths, accidents or otherwise. This is one very legitimate way we could address gun violence in America. I assumed the question was in bad faith and/or facious. I'm not going to go "herp derp government gona just come and take my guns they don't want me to have no mo" just so you can smugly point to me and call me a paranoid hillbilly. Its a painfully obvious leading question that I don't think anyone seriously expects to me answered. But if you're serious I would be afraid of the government confiscating automatic weapons from people for having automatic weapons. That sounds like the dumbest move ever that would most certainly lead to a standoff with a mentally disturbed guy that just happens to have an automatic rifle. That's what I'm afraid of. I'm going to line out point by point on your suggestion in that paragraph starting with "the way we reconcile" 1. training as in gun safety that they already require for a hunting license? 2. age limits like an age limit to take the gun safety class said above or to purchase a gun or get a hunting license? 3. A registry, I'm going to spend my goodwill for making this post by legitimately asking you what you think a registry means. Are people expected to register all their guns? Are people just going to have the guns they buy registered? How is this registry going to be enforced? 4. Insurance so connected to above how are you going to enforce insurance? Are people going to be expected to get liability insurance like cars? Are criminals going to be expected to get insurance for the guns they arn't suppose to have to commit the crimes that they use their guns on? 5. A license So people are expected to have a license to buy guns or carry guns. How is this not a CC license or a license to purchase that I said in my post that I already have? like I say that I've never seen a serious gun registry proposal or a universal background check proposal because they either fall under the above or fall into issues with peoples medical history. But isn't that precisely why there needs to be a confiscation of automatic rifles? If you couldn't enforce a law because crazy doesn't want to part with his favorite very deadly toy, doesn't that show how dangerous these things are and how much you need a more serious regulation of those? Doesn't that fear show how much of a problem the general accessibility is and how much defusing this bomb would help reduce the number of victims of future bloodbaths? I get that you want to let sleeping dogs lie, but in the US there's a massacre every year, half the dogs are awake anyways.
I'm not sure why automatic rifles are brought up, as they are already highly illegal in the US (Only exception is if you have a license to sell weapons. Then you can own automatic rifles, but not sell them...for whatever reason. Which is beyond what normal people can obtain).
|
|
|
United States42689 Posts
How would y’all feel about a scheme where you have to register your firearms which have a serial number tied to your gun license, gun sales need to be recorded like car sales (license of buyer and seller + VIN (serial number) to keep the system up to date with who has what, and annual/biannual/whatever recertification of the license plus proving your continued ownership of the guns.
Theory would be that you’re held accountable for proactively showing your responsible ownership through certification (maybe attending a gun safety class or whatever each time) and are responsible for the whereabouts and deeds of any firearm registered to you.
Obviously you’d be able to mark guns stolen with a valid police report to get them out of your name. Idea would just be to add layers of accountability to drive up the cost of using a gun in a gang feud or whatever.
Wouldn’t do much to stop a troubled teenager stealing their parent’s rifle for killing classmates, beyond giving the parent a conviction for negligent ownership or whatever, but that’s not most gun violence. But would drive up the cost of holding up a gas station if someone somewhere has to account for that specific gun. Even if the serial number was erased before it was sold there’s still a former owner who can’t produce a gun registered in his name when recertification time comes and loses certification. That increases costs and if you can get black market handgun costs to the point where a felon needs a job and a savings account to buy one you’ll probably find fewer felons willing to buy one.
|
yeah the right vs privilege aspect has been discussed to death on this thread also. sst/danglars (probably others also that i dont remember) have made it pretty clear that there is no way they could consider that their ownership of guns isnt a god given right. its why there is no compromise to this day
|
On March 28 2019 00:03 KwarK wrote:
How would y’all feel about a scheme where you have to register your firearms which have a serial number tied to your gun license, gun sales need to be recorded like car sales (license of buyer and seller + VIN (serial number) to keep the system up to date with who has what, and annual/biannual/whatever recertification of the license plus proving your continued ownership of the guns.
Theory would be that you’re held accountable for proactively showing your responsible ownership through certification (maybe attending a gun safety class or whatever each time) and are responsible for the whereabouts and deeds of any firearm registered to you.
Obviously you’d be able to mark guns stolen with a valid police report to get them out of your name. Idea would just be to add layers of accountability to drive up the cost of using a gun in a gang feud or whatever.
Wouldn’t do much to stop a troubled teenager stealing their parent’s rifle for killing classmates, beyond giving the parent a conviction for negligent ownership or whatever, but that’s not most gun violence. But would drive up the cost of holding up a gas station if someone somewhere has to account for that specific gun. Even if the serial number was erased before it was sold there’s still a former owner who can’t produce a gun registered in his name when recertification time comes and loses certification. That increases costs and if you can get black market handgun costs to the point where a felon needs a job and a savings account to buy one you’ll probably find fewer felons willing to buy one.
I don't understand a few things with your argument. How would registration increase the cost of black market guns? Why would criminals want to register their guns in the first place and why would criminals use clean cash to buy black market guns in any case? If they erase the serial number how is the gun going to be tracked back to the person who "lost" the gun? Without a "stop and frisk" type series of checks going around I don't see how this increases black market handguns.
|
On March 28 2019 00:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 00:03 KwarK wrote:
How would y’all feel about a scheme where you have to register your firearms which have a serial number tied to your gun license, gun sales need to be recorded like car sales (license of buyer and seller + VIN (serial number) to keep the system up to date with who has what, and annual/biannual/whatever recertification of the license plus proving your continued ownership of the guns.
Theory would be that you’re held accountable for proactively showing your responsible ownership through certification (maybe attending a gun safety class or whatever each time) and are responsible for the whereabouts and deeds of any firearm registered to you.
Obviously you’d be able to mark guns stolen with a valid police report to get them out of your name. Idea would just be to add layers of accountability to drive up the cost of using a gun in a gang feud or whatever.
Wouldn’t do much to stop a troubled teenager stealing their parent’s rifle for killing classmates, beyond giving the parent a conviction for negligent ownership or whatever, but that’s not most gun violence. But would drive up the cost of holding up a gas station if someone somewhere has to account for that specific gun. Even if the serial number was erased before it was sold there’s still a former owner who can’t produce a gun registered in his name when recertification time comes and loses certification. That increases costs and if you can get black market handgun costs to the point where a felon needs a job and a savings account to buy one you’ll probably find fewer felons willing to buy one. I don't understand a few things with your argument. How would registration increase the cost of black market guns? Why would criminals want to register their guns in the first place and why would criminals use clean cash to buy black market guns in any case? If they erase the serial number how is the gun going to be tracked back to the person who "lost" the gun? Without a "stop and frisk" type series of checks going around I don't see how this increases black market handguns.
If it costs the owner more than just the price of his weapon to lose it, the price for a black market version will go up. Criminals won't register their guns, but this isn't an overnight solution. As unregistered guns gets taken off the market over time while registered ones replace them, it will sort itself out over time (As unregistered guns gets rarer, the prices for them will also increase yet again).
If the serial number is erased, then someone somewhere has a gun registered to them that they are no longer able to procure. You can't tie the original owner to the crime, but you can punish the original owner for losing his gun in the first place (The fact tthat this isn't properly punished in the states right now is an absolute travesty. If you lose your gun, you are directly responsible for whatever it's used for next).
|
United States42689 Posts
On March 28 2019 00:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 00:03 KwarK wrote:
How would y’all feel about a scheme where you have to register your firearms which have a serial number tied to your gun license, gun sales need to be recorded like car sales (license of buyer and seller + VIN (serial number) to keep the system up to date with who has what, and annual/biannual/whatever recertification of the license plus proving your continued ownership of the guns.
Theory would be that you’re held accountable for proactively showing your responsible ownership through certification (maybe attending a gun safety class or whatever each time) and are responsible for the whereabouts and deeds of any firearm registered to you.
Obviously you’d be able to mark guns stolen with a valid police report to get them out of your name. Idea would just be to add layers of accountability to drive up the cost of using a gun in a gang feud or whatever.
Wouldn’t do much to stop a troubled teenager stealing their parent’s rifle for killing classmates, beyond giving the parent a conviction for negligent ownership or whatever, but that’s not most gun violence. But would drive up the cost of holding up a gas station if someone somewhere has to account for that specific gun. Even if the serial number was erased before it was sold there’s still a former owner who can’t produce a gun registered in his name when recertification time comes and loses certification. That increases costs and if you can get black market handgun costs to the point where a felon needs a job and a savings account to buy one you’ll probably find fewer felons willing to buy one. I don't understand a few things with your argument. How would registration increase the cost of black market guns? Why would criminals want to register their guns in the first place and why would criminals use clean cash to buy black market guns in any case? If they erase the serial number how is the gun going to be tracked back to the person who "lost" the gun? Without a "stop and frisk" type series of checks going around I don't see how this increases black market handguns.
Criminals wouldn’t register existing guns but newly manufactured guns would be registered to the manufacturer, then the store, and so forth. It also makes it super easy to charge and convict drug dealers with guns because unlicensed ownership is a slam dunk case. Possession is the crime, as is everyone else involved in the chain of custody of the weapon.
With an erased serial number you’re not going to be able to trace a given gun back to the accountable owner, as you say, but you do create an accountable owner who can no longer produce the gun registered in his name when recertification time comes. That’s what drives up the costs. Fines, losing certification, whatever. The point is making people less willing to buy a gun for another person who cannot legally obtain one themselves.
It’s not about buying with clean cash, it’s that it is not economically rational to engage in petty crime with a gun if the cost of the gun exceeds the proceeds from the crime.
|
United States42689 Posts
You could also do away with background checks pretty easily. Seller puts name, DOB, license number, and gun serial number into the online form and, assuming the data matches (license number matches name, license not suspended due to felony etc) it’ll update the database and print out a gun registration for the new owner and a proof of sale for the seller.
Accountability, rather than restrictions. Making people responsible for what is done with their guns, and for maintaining a minimum level of gun safety and competence through certification, rather than a blanket denial of access.
|
Yeah but a version of that law is already in the books on a number of states and in DC, Especially in connection to a crime or in the case of a felon. the "with a deadly weapon" clause is already in play for petty crimes.
The problem is that there is illegally manufactured handguns smuggled into the US from third world countries already. The 1911 was made in 1911 and it's still a fairly popular handgun today.
People who are already committing crimes are not going to be demotivated by breaking the law. I don't know how you're going to crack down on people losing or having their guns stolen from them on top of that.
|
|
|
On March 27 2019 09:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 07:11 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 27 2019 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On March 27 2019 00:57 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 22:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 13:29 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 09:21 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 08:32 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon. I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such. In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century. So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things> 1. show off 2. feel empowered 3. collection 4. mass murder Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media. As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever. Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does. Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all. I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it. On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that. I'm gona take a swing at this because I think its pretty genuine, I won't go the full mile but at least halfway maybe. I think the first amendment is the more popular one. The second one is more controversial but I believe thats just because of the media attention its given. I think a conventional civil war is ridiculous but I don't really understand where people get this fantasy that bombers tanks or helicopters even matter in an asymmetrical war. There are a lot softer targets an insurgency or civil unrest would go after that the military can't all protect that would achieve the same means. Take out a few bridges a few roads and a few water treatment plants and a major city becomes a tomb of people dying of starvation thirst and disease in a matter of weeks. California needs to pipe in large quantities of drinkable water for their farms and people. The countrywide logistics networks are a matter of public record and while Joe hilbilly may not have the firepower to face an armored division he can stop the easy flow of goods through the nation with the materials on his farm. ANYWAY, You miss on a lot about hunting and why it feeds into the gun culture of America. I watched a harem and a rafter cross the road today. That would be a group of pheasants and turkeys. The State departments of natural resources get a lot of their funding from selling licenses to hunt these animals that they reinvest into habitat and conservation efforts. (pheasants forever shoutout) I have to pay hundreds of years for the whitetail deer licenses every year regardless of if I see anything or not. 330 thousand were harvested just last year in Wisconsin which narrowly went trump. I'm not even going into the dozens or so of other animal herds that the government needs to keep under control that it also sells licenses for the public to hunt. And don't get me started on the monster that is the wild boar population in the middle and southern parts of the central united states coming in the next decade or so. handguns are actually the real target for anyone who wants lowered gun violence. They're cheap, easy to illegally manufacture and easy to conceal. Just to clarify, you need semi automatic weapons to hunt game ? Hunting is hugely popular where I am from. I have never taken to it personally but I many of the private schoolers I went to school with are scions of Daedalus or political families that own lands as far as the eye can see. Hunting and Equestrian activity are like the only thing they ever do. Most of them rely on bolt or lever action guns to hunt partly because thats where they feel the real skill is involved, and partly because its well more than they need. Ive grown up around plenty of wild boars and jackals (for populations that need control) in my time. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need the same mass murder weapons to keep habitats under control. So thats hunting angle is kinda bullshit if you are suggesting (which is why I asked for the clarification) that people who hunt would like unrestricted access to a weapon of choice.. You can hunt perfectly fine and not need military style weapons to do it. Like theres so many things you can do even with Bolt rifles for example where you restrict all makers to have the bolt removable without having to pull triggers would probably save a 5 year old somewhere. It might not sound like a big deal. But if it isnt then why not implement it. But no one is even will to talk about stuff like that. Bottom line is the only real argument you have against gun control ion mass kill potential weapons. + Show Spoiler +(and I think its really silly to get into specifics of what functions specific parts of guns perform and how different modifications do what. If you have experience with guns you know better than to argue such technicalities) is "Fuck off, I like guns" which is not a great argument but its the only one youve got and thats fine, keep the guns that you can have fun with and maybe stay away from the mass murder weapons. Sticking to the former might save a few lives. And if your going to do some militaristic uprising against a tyrant at that point you might be better of using guns that actually require some mastery then trying your luck with semis that you will probably never bother to learn to use and get wrecked doing it. All that fantasy fanfic guerrilla shit Falling was talking about can be achieved without the need for semis and autos. Please don't attribute arguments to me that I didn't make. I'm not going to address them but I'm just saying its really rude and insulting. Hunting in America is a completely different world than what you're talking about. Its most definitely, from the nations birth, an activity that the poor and middle rual class has embraced. Sons and daughters are taken into the woods in their early or pre-teen years, given a gun, left alone in the cold and told to kill something. You don't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt. Birds, for example, are incredibly hard to hit and shooting at them while they're still on the ground is a huge no no but pumps are almost as fast and common. I give AZ shit but the 5 round marker they set is actually fairly accurate for when it becomes more then what you should need. A bolt action is good (my uncle still uses his dads moisin nagant from the war) and my lever action is pretty reliable. But you're still talking about millions and millions of guns that are nowhere near capable of a mass shooting we see in the media. The recoil from the type of guns would make it impossible. If you wanted to sheer off the hunting community from the gun control debate you'd see arguments for how large the calibler of a gun (how big the bullets it shoots) or how small (so .22 rifles are okay). Bolts are already removable and all weapons are military style murder weapons, thats an argument that makes you look bad and boils down to "scary weapons bad". I didnt attribute it, I asked for clarification. Because you mentioned the hunting community without really specifiying what the hunting community actually employs or doesnt. And at the end of the day, it doesnt matter whether its a rich people or a poor people activity. The bottom line on what kind of guns you need for hunting remains the same. I strongly disagree that all weapons have the same mass kill potential, yes with someone that has a high degree of skill they could get the same result but looking at the kind of people commiting murder acts where they get a high kill count I dont see them as having been particularly skilled and still doing a pretty good job. Which means scary weapons are bad. You have no need for them. Well other than and ill say it again "Hey I like scary weapons, they cool". And mind you, I didnt say just removable bolts. I said removable bolts without having to pull the trigger to remove them. I know all bolts are removable, its insulting that you didnt bother to respect the comment enough to pay attention to that comment. Its a small nuanced example of something that could go a long way and not hard to do. You said that I needed mass murder weapons and that my only argument was "fuck off I like guns" Thats not asking for clarification thats making someones argument for them so they look like shit. I was asking for clarification in my early post to understand what "confiscation" you were afraid would happen with guns if there was a registry. I'm still hoping to get some clarification. I thought I made some really good points about how we could make small changes that would keep pretty much all parties happy. [ + Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On March 25 2019 12:18 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 25 2019 01:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:
I mean what your getting at has nothing to do with what were talking about. And you have had to move the goal posts pretty far. Or please feel free to show how the "evil car loan" business would take over the gun market and take peoples guns who need them for work and blah blah. But sure I'm all for regulating high interest loans on anything... and guns of course because they are even more dangerous.
You are getting ridiculous.
You are the one who keeps moving the conversation away from what we're talking about. Complaining now that we've gotten there is whats ridiculous. And I have no confidence that shambala understood my post in the slightest so I'm not going to respond to that on grounds of it not being worth either of our efforts. And catdog I didn't mean that literally. I was being facetious in turning a phrase into another phrase for my point. Your post mentioned that you have permits for guns, and that you have a sheriff that urges people to get firearm training. Those are both factual statements that don't explicitly get at a a point. So what is your point? I get you don't want a registry because of confiscation... but what confiscation are you worried about? I've known plenty of gun owners, I've never heard of a gun being taken from someone who didn't do something illegal with it or was mentally unstable. The only situation in which I could imagine a gun being confiscated was if someone took out a loan to buy a gun and couldn't finish paying the loan (much like a car get's repossessed). That is one reason I made my comparison to cars. If you buy a car (or gun) and don't pay for it with the expectation you get to keep it, that's stealing. The way in which a car/gun comparison is very legitimate in regard to gun violence is in the way that both things can be very dangerous and lethal when use inappropriately. The way we reconcile that danger in American culture is to require training, age limits, a registry, insurance, and getting a license. This way if an individual is irresponsible with their car they are held to account for it, and if they cause damage insurance pays for the cost of that damage. People are required to demonstrate responsibility in order for the privilege to own and drive a car. Why should this be different for a gun?My point is that by making the same true for guns we would probably have less gun deaths, accidents or otherwise. This is one very legitimate way we could address gun violence in America.
I assumed the question was in bad faith and/or facious.
I'm not going to go "herp derp government gona just come and take my guns they don't want me to have no mo" just so you can smugly point to me and call me a paranoid hillbilly. Its a painfully obvious leading question that I don't think anyone seriously expects to me answered.
But if you're serious I would be afraid of the government confiscating automatic weapons from people for having automatic weapons. That sounds like the dumbest move ever that would most certainly lead to a standoff with a mentally disturbed guy that just happens to have an automatic rifle. That's what I'm afraid of.
I'm going to line out point by point on your suggestion in that paragraph starting with "the way we reconcile"
1. training as in gun safety that they already require for a hunting license?
2. age limits like an age limit to take the gun safety class said above or to purchase a gun or get a hunting license?
3. A registry, I'm going to spend my goodwill for making this post by legitimately asking you what you think a registry means. Are people expected to register all their guns? Are people just going to have the guns they buy registered? How is this registry going to be enforced?
4. Insurance so connected to above how are you going to enforce insurance? Are people going to be expected to get liability insurance like cars? Are criminals going to be expected to get insurance for the guns they arn't suppose to have to commit the crimes that they use their guns on?
5. A license So people are expected to have a license to buy guns or carry guns. How is this not a CC license or a license to purchase that I said in my post that I already have?
like I say that I've never seen a serious gun registry proposal or a universal background check proposal because they either fall under the above or fall into issues with peoples medical history. [/QUOTE][/quote]
It wasn't in bad faith, I'll reply, just taking a break from the conversation.
|
Don't be silly. The more guns a country has, the more safe that country is. More guns = more safety.
|
Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 09:14 Sermokala wrote:On March 27 2019 07:11 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 27 2019 04:14 Sermokala wrote:On March 27 2019 00:57 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 22:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 13:29 Rebs wrote:On March 26 2019 09:21 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2019 08:32 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 26 2019 05:41 travis wrote:
the problem with outlawing guns is simple:
when you outlaw a thing - and you tell all civilians "you can't have this thing because it is too dangerous"
but then at THE SAME TIME you say "but we will have these special groups of people such as police or military, and they CAN own the dangerous thing", then that's unfair and it creates a dangerous balance of power.
so the question is, where do you draw the line, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
police have tazers, can people have tazers? yes generally, they aren't dangerous enough.
can people have some kind of large bomb? well, like all weapons, we would prefer that the military didn't have bombs, that no one had bombs at all - but we can't really have that situation because we can't get the entire world to have bombs. so we have to look at it practically and just weigh whether or not the risk outweighs the freedom, and I think most people agree - bombs are too dangerous for normal civilians to have.
So then we look in the middle, which is something like guns. Is this freedom more important than the risk of having guns in society.
I think the typical person that is against a lot of the gun restriction stuff has a different conception/valuing of freedom than people who are for a lot of gun restriction and/or banning. Personally, I am kind of in the middle, since we can't make EVERYONE stop using/possessing guns. If we could do that, I would be for the banning of all weapons(the type that exist specifically to be weapons) in general, unless there was a very strong argument for the possession of that weapon. I understand, that in US you have the 2nd amendment, which is one of the most popular ones. And iirc it came to be in the constitution, because your founding fathers thought it necessary that the general populous to possess the means to overthrow a government that becomes tyrannical and refuses to concede power. In the 18th century i guess it seemed prudent to guarantee the absolute right for local militias to organize and arm themselves, since the state-of-the-art weapon was something along the lines of a bayonet, and armies had some cannons as well, mostly for smoke and intimidating noises than for actual AOE clear. So a militia armed with muskets could give serious trouble to a troop of state soldiers armed with bayonets and such. In the 21st century a violent civic coup attempt, or a popular armed uprising of the people vs the government of the US is absolutely ridiculous idea, no matter how many legally purchasable automatic / assualt weapons you buy, your local militia wouldnt stand the slightest chance against any real attempt of the US army to beat it down. You'd have to face fighting helicopters, and the physical condition and aptitude of your regular Joe vs your regular US army corps member is somewhat steeper than it was in the 18th century. So by that logic, the where do you draw the line question, at least for me as an outside observer, is pretty clear. You draw the line where you can use that weapon for simple self-defense and nothing else. Which is basically a handgun or single/double barrel gun. Anything with higher fire power than that can be used for one of the following things> 1. show off 2. feel empowered 3. collection 4. mass murder Then again, im not very strongly invested in the issue one way or another (US gun laws that is), i just follow it sometimes since it's always so popular on social media. As for my country, you can get guns and ammo and a permit to use them, it's not super easy, you have to undergo some psych tests and such, but doable. Once you have that, you can have your gun with you in your home, and whatever. Carrying weapons out in the open? using public transportation, entering public buildings with them? Forget it. Such permits do exist i believe, they are almost impossible to obtain, i certainly dont know anyone who does. Overwhelming majority of police officers are not carrying guns on regular duty, and those who do are discouraged from using them. Constabulary officers and such dont carry at all. I think it's a pretty good system, but again, i'm not really invested in exporting it. On a final note, i dont think american guncontrol reform is gonna happen anytime soon. At this point it has nothing to do with self-defense or civic freedoms. As i see it from a distance, it became a cultural / national pride sort of thing, and it's really hard to beat that. I'm gona take a swing at this because I think its pretty genuine, I won't go the full mile but at least halfway maybe. I think the first amendment is the more popular one. The second one is more controversial but I believe thats just because of the media attention its given. I think a conventional civil war is ridiculous but I don't really understand where people get this fantasy that bombers tanks or helicopters even matter in an asymmetrical war. There are a lot softer targets an insurgency or civil unrest would go after that the military can't all protect that would achieve the same means. Take out a few bridges a few roads and a few water treatment plants and a major city becomes a tomb of people dying of starvation thirst and disease in a matter of weeks. California needs to pipe in large quantities of drinkable water for their farms and people. The countrywide logistics networks are a matter of public record and while Joe hilbilly may not have the firepower to face an armored division he can stop the easy flow of goods through the nation with the materials on his farm. ANYWAY, You miss on a lot about hunting and why it feeds into the gun culture of America. I watched a harem and a rafter cross the road today. That would be a group of pheasants and turkeys. The State departments of natural resources get a lot of their funding from selling licenses to hunt these animals that they reinvest into habitat and conservation efforts. (pheasants forever shoutout) I have to pay hundreds of years for the whitetail deer licenses every year regardless of if I see anything or not. 330 thousand were harvested just last year in Wisconsin which narrowly went trump. I'm not even going into the dozens or so of other animal herds that the government needs to keep under control that it also sells licenses for the public to hunt. And don't get me started on the monster that is the wild boar population in the middle and southern parts of the central united states coming in the next decade or so. handguns are actually the real target for anyone who wants lowered gun violence. They're cheap, easy to illegally manufacture and easy to conceal. Just to clarify, you need semi automatic weapons to hunt game ? Hunting is hugely popular where I am from. I have never taken to it personally but I many of the private schoolers I went to school with are scions of Daedalus or political families that own lands as far as the eye can see. Hunting and Equestrian activity are like the only thing they ever do. Most of them rely on bolt or lever action guns to hunt partly because thats where they feel the real skill is involved, and partly because its well more than they need. Ive grown up around plenty of wild boars and jackals (for populations that need control) in my time. Its a complete fallacy to suggest you need the same mass murder weapons to keep habitats under control. So thats hunting angle is kinda bullshit if you are suggesting (which is why I asked for the clarification) that people who hunt would like unrestricted access to a weapon of choice.. You can hunt perfectly fine and not need military style weapons to do it. Like theres so many things you can do even with Bolt rifles for example where you restrict all makers to have the bolt removable without having to pull triggers would probably save a 5 year old somewhere. It might not sound like a big deal. But if it isnt then why not implement it. But no one is even will to talk about stuff like that. Bottom line is the only real argument you have against gun control ion mass kill potential weapons. + Show Spoiler +(and I think its really silly to get into specifics of what functions specific parts of guns perform and how different modifications do what. If you have experience with guns you know better than to argue such technicalities) is "Fuck off, I like guns" which is not a great argument but its the only one youve got and thats fine, keep the guns that you can have fun with and maybe stay away from the mass murder weapons. Sticking to the former might save a few lives. And if your going to do some militaristic uprising against a tyrant at that point you might be better of using guns that actually require some mastery then trying your luck with semis that you will probably never bother to learn to use and get wrecked doing it. All that fantasy fanfic guerrilla shit Falling was talking about can be achieved without the need for semis and autos. Please don't attribute arguments to me that I didn't make. I'm not going to address them but I'm just saying its really rude and insulting. Hunting in America is a completely different world than what you're talking about. Its most definitely, from the nations birth, an activity that the poor and middle rual class has embraced. Sons and daughters are taken into the woods in their early or pre-teen years, given a gun, left alone in the cold and told to kill something. You don't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt. Birds, for example, are incredibly hard to hit and shooting at them while they're still on the ground is a huge no no but pumps are almost as fast and common. I give AZ shit but the 5 round marker they set is actually fairly accurate for when it becomes more then what you should need. A bolt action is good (my uncle still uses his dads moisin nagant from the war) and my lever action is pretty reliable. But you're still talking about millions and millions of guns that are nowhere near capable of a mass shooting we see in the media. The recoil from the type of guns would make it impossible. If you wanted to sheer off the hunting community from the gun control debate you'd see arguments for how large the calibler of a gun (how big the bullets it shoots) or how small (so .22 rifles are okay). Bolts are already removable and all weapons are military style murder weapons, thats an argument that makes you look bad and boils down to "scary weapons bad". I didnt attribute it, I asked for clarification. Because you mentioned the hunting community without really specifiying what the hunting community actually employs or doesnt. And at the end of the day, it doesnt matter whether its a rich people or a poor people activity. The bottom line on what kind of guns you need for hunting remains the same. I strongly disagree that all weapons have the same mass kill potential, yes with someone that has a high degree of skill they could get the same result but looking at the kind of people commiting murder acts where they get a high kill count I dont see them as having been particularly skilled and still doing a pretty good job. Which means scary weapons are bad. You have no need for them. Well other than and ill say it again "Hey I like scary weapons, they cool". And mind you, I didnt say just removable bolts. I said removable bolts without having to pull the trigger to remove them. I know all bolts are removable, its insulting that you didnt bother to respect the comment enough to pay attention to that comment. Its a small nuanced example of something that could go a long way and not hard to do. You said that I needed mass murder weapons and that my only argument was "fuck off I like guns" Thats not asking for clarification thats making someones argument for them so they look like shit. I was asking for clarification in my early post to understand what "confiscation" you were afraid would happen with guns if there was a registry. I'm still hoping to get some clarification. I thought I made some really good points about how we could make small changes that would keep pretty much all parties happy. [ + Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On March 25 2019 12:18 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 25 2019 01:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 06:10 JimmiC wrote:
I mean what your getting at has nothing to do with what were talking about. And you have had to move the goal posts pretty far. Or please feel free to show how the "evil car loan" business would take over the gun market and take peoples guns who need them for work and blah blah. But sure I'm all for regulating high interest loans on anything... and guns of course because they are even more dangerous.
You are getting ridiculous.
You are the one who keeps moving the conversation away from what we're talking about. Complaining now that we've gotten there is whats ridiculous. And I have no confidence that shambala understood my post in the slightest so I'm not going to respond to that on grounds of it not being worth either of our efforts. And catdog I didn't mean that literally. I was being facetious in turning a phrase into another phrase for my point. Your post mentioned that you have permits for guns, and that you have a sheriff that urges people to get firearm training. Those are both factual statements that don't explicitly get at a a point. So what is your point? I get you don't want a registry because of confiscation... but what confiscation are you worried about? I've known plenty of gun owners, I've never heard of a gun being taken from someone who didn't do something illegal with it or was mentally unstable. The only situation in which I could imagine a gun being confiscated was if someone took out a loan to buy a gun and couldn't finish paying the loan (much like a car get's repossessed). That is one reason I made my comparison to cars. If you buy a car (or gun) and don't pay for it with the expectation you get to keep it, that's stealing. The way in which a car/gun comparison is very legitimate in regard to gun violence is in the way that both things can be very dangerous and lethal when use inappropriately. The way we reconcile that danger in American culture is to require training, age limits, a registry, insurance, and getting a license. This way if an individual is irresponsible with their car they are held to account for it, and if they cause damage insurance pays for the cost of that damage. People are required to demonstrate responsibility in order for the privilege to own and drive a car. Why should this be different for a gun?My point is that by making the same true for guns we would probably have less gun deaths, accidents or otherwise. This is one very legitimate way we could address gun violence in America. I assumed the question was in bad faith and/or facious. I'm not going to go "herp derp government gona just come and take my guns they don't want me to have no mo" just so you can smugly point to me and call me a paranoid hillbilly. Its a painfully obvious leading question that I don't think anyone seriously expects to me answered. But if you're serious I would be afraid of the government confiscating automatic weapons from people for having automatic weapons. That sounds like the dumbest move ever that would most certainly lead to a standoff with a mentally disturbed guy that just happens to have an automatic rifle. That's what I'm afraid of. I'm going to line out point by point on your suggestion in that paragraph starting with "the way we reconcile" 1. training as in gun safety that they already require for a hunting license? 2. age limits like an age limit to take the gun safety class said above or to purchase a gun or get a hunting license? 3. A registry, I'm going to spend my goodwill for making this post by legitimately asking you what you think a registry means. Are people expected to register all their guns? Are people just going to have the guns they buy registered? How is this registry going to be enforced? 4. Insurance so connected to above how are you going to enforce insurance? Are people going to be expected to get liability insurance like cars? Are criminals going to be expected to get insurance for the guns they arn't suppose to have to commit the crimes that they use their guns on? 5. A license So people are expected to have a license to buy guns or carry guns. How is this not a CC license or a license to purchase that I said in my post that I already have? like I say that I've never seen a serious gun registry proposal or a universal background check proposal because they either fall under the above or fall into issues with peoples medical history.
1. A hunting license is required for hunting, not for safe operation of a firearm. *In Arizona no such license is required to own a handgun or semi-automatic rifle. Anyone can own and open carry.
Permit required for concealed carry. So there you get the training for safety, but that's with a permit that allows you to conceal... of which there is no training needed to conceal a gun, anyone can conceal a gun. You need training to operate one safely.
2. Age limit in Arizona is 18.
Do I trust any 18 year old in Arizona with 0 training in operation to safely carry a firearm... 200% no. I absolutely do not, and I've seen examples of hazardous handling that could have resulted in serious injury or death.
3. You register guns like you register cars. We have no problem doing this with cars, if you get pulled over police ask for registration, if you are without it you get a ticket (this encourages people to be register), if you ignore the ticket you get your license revoked. If you are out shooting and officer has the right to ask for your registration, if you don't have it registered they take it or fine you, whatever we decide in the law. I think a ticket fine is appropriate.
This is something that is absolutely doable, and already being done with cars, which is also preventing people doing dangerous shit with cars because they can be traced back to the owner.
4. Yes, liability insurance. If you discharge your gun in a way that accidentally results in death or injury insurance would cover the damage to the victim or the victims family. It should be the responsibility of the gun owner to operate safely or be held liable for the likely life changing damage any gunshot wound would inflict.
Keep in mind there is no such thing as a minor gunshot wound, best case example for a wound is someone's finger getting blown off, moderate is someone gets hit in the jaw and it shatters making it impossible to ever eat normally again (plus reconstructive surgery), worst case death or paralysis.
*Either way the person's quality of life changes FOREVER. Also their potential to make a living might change.
If a criminal owns a gun they aren't going to register it anyway, or get insurance, because they are using it unlawfully. *However, if police are asking for licenses and someone can't provide them because they are criminal, that is much more likely to get flagged and the criminal arrested before they commit a crime.
Right now in Arizona if you are a criminal with a gun, and a police ask a criminal if they have a permit, they just say they don't need one and that's the end of it. Police can't require any deeper they go on with a gun to commit a crime.
5. If a state requires a CC license (which includes safety and operational training, which I think most do) or a license to purchase, then you are right and I agree! Arizona requires no such license to purchase, anyone can buy, but if they did... then having a cc or a permit would mean you have been verifiable trained to safely own and operate a gun (yay).
That's all I'm asking for (at least as an initial solution to see how it works).
**My main point is that if we regulate something common and moderately dangerous as cars with a registry, then we must do the same for guns, which are extremely dangerous. If a state is requiring people to get training and a license or permit to buy/own, that they have to renew everyone 5 years or so then that is my main concern/point.
*We need required training for safety, and a registry so guns can be traced back to people based on their actions, just like cars, this creates accountability and more responsible use.
*Guns should also be taken from deranged people, the Vegas shooting is a perfect example.
In my comparison of cars to guns and how we regulate both, it makes no sense to me how operation of such a lethal device as a gun requires nothing in some states, where cars in all states require training and insurance. It makes no sense.
I think that level of regulation would really hold people accountable to what they did with firearms and reduce some of the damage caused by them that is clearly preventable.
*This statement is in regard to your worry about a stand off, In the Vegas shooting I believe it did end in a standoff, but only after he killed 58 people wounded 851 and traumatized a crowd of 22,000. The job of police is to intervene and force a standoff before it gets to civilians getting killed... even better as a society we create laws that prevent the possibility of these situations occurring.
But vegas got to a point where this man was lodged in a room with guns, if police could have known and confronted him earlier 22,000 peoples lives might be very different today.
When the police confronted him after the shooting, he unloaded everything he had at them. If they would have confronted him prior to the shooting he would have unloaded everything he had on them. *The only difference is that 58 people wouldn't have died 581 people wouldn't have been injured, and the other 22,000 people that attended wouldn't have been traumatized for life.
58 people killed 851 wound (400 from gunfire) and that doesn't account for the amount of trauma 22,000 people present suffered through and changed how they view their lives ongoing.
1 man with automatic weapons impacted the lives of 22,000 people permanently, that alone should be a massive statement as to how dangerous these weapons are in the wrong hands. The slightest mistake with a gun can result in death, and the magnitude of small mishandling can be life altering.
Not to mention the impact of someone with evil intentions that deliberately wants to harm as many people as possible, Sandy Hook (traumatized a nation), Orlando nightclub shooting.
|
On March 28 2019 01:22 KwarK wrote:
You could also do away with background checks pretty easily. Seller puts name, DOB, license number, and gun serial number into the online form and, assuming the data matches (license number matches name, license not suspended due to felony etc) it’ll update the database and print out a gun registration for the new owner and a proof of sale for the seller.
Accountability, rather than restrictions. Making people responsible for what is done with their guns, and for maintaining a minimum level of gun safety and competence through certification, rather than a blanket denial of access.
100% agree with all your suggestions.
I think if you take those steps like you said, it doesn't make sense for people to sell guns to other people that shouldn't have them. It certainly would make gun shows more responsible for who they sell to, rather than just anyone with a pulse.
I say, make it be traceable back to point of sale, so the gun shop is held responsible for who the are selling to and the stock on hand. Because now they are giving them away to anyone with money in some states, and people cross state lines to buy, then bring them back to more restricted areas.
|
I made a point earlier in this thread in regard to an old saying, "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In relationship to the danger of guns, when you have a gun on you and your mindset is that it is for protection, everything starts to look like a threat.
Do gun owners consider this? I'm genuinely curious. Consider how our realities wrap so much around the things we keep close to us or think about a lot (such as starcraft, or even music if we play it) reality begins to distort/bend around our focal points, therefore changing how we perceive things (threat or not).
I can think of at least 2 other recent examples that almost mirror this one. In this particular case it's really sad, because he claims to be protecting his family, instead he destroys another family.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/us/georgia-man-shot-wrong-apartment/index.html
I would again propose there are countless more examples of how guns to extreme damage, as opposed to examples of them doing good.
|
That just seems to me to simply be a case of outright murder, because he had a gun and was willing to use it to end an otherwise benign conversation.
"Trying to protect his family" was just an excuse and not even a good one.
In the case of actually trying to protect "your" family, having a gun is more dangerous, as more people are shot by family members in mistaken cases than any case of protecting their family.
|
That story from CNN reminds me of stories the Wild West where the best way to prevent violence was to have everyone give up their guns when they entered the city/town.
|
On April 02 2019 02:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
That just seems to me to simply be a case of outright murder, because he had a gun and was willing to use it to end an otherwise benign conversation.
"Trying to protect his family" was just an excuse and not even a good one.
In the case of actually trying to protect "your" family, having a gun is more dangerous, as more people are shot by family members in mistaken cases than any case of protecting their family.
Regardless of what the facts are, what I'm suggesting is important here is how the man with the gun perceives the situation to be, and conscious consideration of that by any gun owner. Do gun owners consider the idea that by orienting so much of their life around guns, how that might change their perception of a situation...
For example, are they seeing a threat to their life where there is none, based on spending a lot of their thinking process on the idea, "I need a gun for protection" and really buying into that belief.
There was another recent example of a police officer coming home to the wrong apartment opening the door (at least thats the story, idk how that happens), and when she found someone inside, the reflex was "intruder" and killed the man in his own home.
Another example, was a guy got pushed because he was in a loud argument with someone's girlfriend and fell on his ass. Nothing happened after that, but he pulled out his gun and shot the guy that pushed him anyway. Turns out from other reports the guy had a history of confronting people and saying he had a gun (essentially looking for a reason to use it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
