|
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 April 04 2014 01:39 Cuce wrote:
I thought in us you would still recoreded in a registery, ana licenced when you buy a gun, regardless of states law on gun control.
So you can buy a gun legaly and not have its serial number recorded? how do they conduct balistic analyses then?
sorry to be a bother, but this is just my ignorance speaking, not a pro con thing on gun control.
Those ballistics tests are done once they have a murder weapon. The prosecutor is already pretty sure the guy did it, got a warrant to have his guns seized and tested, and compared the test shell casings with ones found at the crime scene.
Some states require licensing for hand-guns, but not all, and there's no Federal registry or licensing for anything that is not fully automatic.
|
United States24782 Posts
On April 04 2014 00:55 Millitron wrote:
If there was a registry, it wouldn't be hard to round up all the people with said guns. You wouldn't go kick down their door, you'd pick them up with a traffic stop. Just keep an eye out for Joe McGunOwner's license plates, and pull him over when you see him. No chance for a big shoot-out. He's not going to have his whole arsenal in his car, and even if he does have some of it there, he won't be in an easily defended position.
Gun owners are notoriously worried about having their guns taken from them... and many/most refuse to register their current collections for this reason. If you make it a law to register existing firearm collections, then you are basically going to be capable of rounding up all the calm people's guns, and all the nutjobs will still have their unregistered guns. This is an example of attempts at making the country safer punishing the more 'innocent' people without solving the base problems.
It might be possible to require all new gun sales to be registered into a database, though, with more success. That's assuming we don't have a sudden growth in black-market style sales in response.
|
On April 04 2014 06:31 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 00:55 Millitron wrote:
If there was a registry, it wouldn't be hard to round up all the people with said guns. You wouldn't go kick down their door, you'd pick them up with a traffic stop. Just keep an eye out for Joe McGunOwner's license plates, and pull him over when you see him. No chance for a big shoot-out. He's not going to have his whole arsenal in his car, and even if he does have some of it there, he won't be in an easily defended position. Gun owners are notoriously worried about having their guns taken from them... and many/most refuse to register their current collections for this reason. If you make it a law to register existing firearm collections, then you are basically going to be capable of rounding up all the calm people's guns, and all the nutjobs will still have their unregistered guns. This is an example of attempts at making the country safer punishing the more 'innocent' people without solving the base problems. It might be possible to require all new gun sales to be registered into a database, though, with more success. That's assuming we don't have a sudden growth in black-market style sales in response.
And that would still open the door for all sorts of abuses.
Imagine if we had another mass shooting, and in the emotion-fuelled backlash against gun rights, there was another Assault Weapons Ban. Even once people calm down, and the new AWB gets repealed, it's too late. They've already seized millions of guns from law-abiding citizens.
It's not just about protecting from a possible tyranny. Refusing to allow a registry also protects against the kind of temporary insanity that's so common in our 24-hour news cycle world.
|
On April 03 2014 21:37 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2014 21:17 OuchyDathurts wrote:Doing so is far easier said than done. While I don't think crazy people should have guns it's just not as simple as that. First off you have the healthcare system which is pretty awful and the mental health side is even worse. Unless someone happens to go to a shrink and gets identified as a whackjob they wouldn't be in the system. Even assuming someone is found to be mentally ill treatment here is non-existent for the most part, there's not enough mental hospitals period. So assuming we find out a guy is crazy and shouldn't have a gun what do we do? Well there isn't a comprehensive registry and people can guy guns legally off the books at a gun show or from their next door neighbor, then there's also the black market. So, we'd need to force every single gun transaction to go through a database that doesn't exist to check if someone has the mental faculties to own a firearm. Lets say we get said registry up and every legal transaction is checked against your psychological screening. Well crazy guy just came in to buy a gun and it turns out he's flagged as crazy, no sale today pal! Except he might already have 10 guns at home. Now we have to go knock down his door and probably get into a shootout to take his guns away, unless of course you did it while he was locked up in the mental hospital that doesn't have room for him or millions and millions of others. So, that's not exactly a rosy situation reclaiming firearms. Then you have the normal totally sane guy off the street. To actually check if people are sane enough to own a gun you'd pretty much have to force everyone interested in buying one to take a psych test to be on record as nuts or cool otherwise like previously stated most crazy people will get through because they're never diagnosed. Alright, so now you're essentially forcing law abiding people to prove they're not insane. That's basically treating them as a criminal and they have to prove they aren't which is pretty fucked up. You also have the thought process that some gun nuts have that if there is a list then the government has the list of all the people that own guns so they'll go send SEAL team 82 after them, kill or disarm them all and take over the country. Which, for my money is absolute insanity but its an argument that's made fairly often. Crazy people shouldn't have firearms flat our period, I agree with you there. But actually pulling that off would be a god damn nightmare unfortunately. you make it sound a lot more complicated than it really is. There's probably some registry out there that tells you who has a license and is allowed to drive a car. I'm not actually sure about that (as in: I haven't seen it with my own eyes) but I'd guess so. There shouldn't be a problem whatsoever to make something like this. You're forcing totally law-abiding people who never got into a car accident before to prove that they're able to handle a car and make them carry a licence on a daily basis as well. Yeah it's not that simple either but it would be something. You don't get to say it's stupid just because something isn't 100% foolproof and yeah there will be people who slip through like those who haven't been diagnised or because of black market but that doesn't mean you get to ignore it based on "duh, making it absolutely perfect would be a nightmare, so no point in giving it a try for a somewhat reasonable middlething".
Driving isn't a right though, being able to own guns is a right given by the constitution. Whether you believe that is for better or for worse that makes things much more difficult. Getting something along those lines passed would be a slug fest the likes of which I don't think we've ever seen in our lives. On top of that testing for a driver's license is pretty trivial and you can retake it all you like. Going to a shrink is more of a burden and once you're diagnosed (even wrongly) as a whack job that's the end of it. You don't get to try again and prove you're not nutty.
Making the system perfect would be actually impossible currently. Getting ANYTHING in place, even a quasi functional solution that's still rife with holes would be almost impossible.
Maybe you don't fully understand how things work here being from Germany, I don't know. But there are more guns here than people. People that have guns very very very much love their guns. They're quite vocal about it, and they have the constitution on their side. Before we could even dream about this we'd need a single payer medical system in place so people would have no excuse to go in to see a shrink since it would cost them nothing. That's just the tip of the iceberg, and these aren't even close to all of the problems involved in having a perfect system.
I'm on the side of not letting crazy asses have guns! But I'm a realist. The problems right now are essentially insurmountable. Maybe in a few generations things might change, but as it stands right now I don't see any way this happens on any level.
|
On April 04 2014 06:31 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 00:55 Millitron wrote:
If there was a registry, it wouldn't be hard to round up all the people with said guns. You wouldn't go kick down their door, you'd pick them up with a traffic stop. Just keep an eye out for Joe McGunOwner's license plates, and pull him over when you see him. No chance for a big shoot-out. He's not going to have his whole arsenal in his car, and even if he does have some of it there, he won't be in an easily defended position. Gun owners are notoriously worried about having their guns taken from them... and many/most refuse to register their current collections for this reason. If you make it a law to register existing firearm collections, then you are basically going to be capable of rounding up all the calm people's guns, and all the nutjobs will still have their unregistered guns. This is an example of attempts at making the country safer punishing the more 'innocent' people without solving the base problems. It might be possible to require all new gun sales to be registered into a database, though, with more success. That's assuming we don't have a sudden growth in black-market style sales in response.
Are there any reports on how many crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms, opposed to legal firearms? Something I am a curious about,
|
|
|
On April 04 2014 09:50 SigmaoctanusIV wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 06:31 micronesia wrote:On April 04 2014 00:55 Millitron wrote:
If there was a registry, it wouldn't be hard to round up all the people with said guns. You wouldn't go kick down their door, you'd pick them up with a traffic stop. Just keep an eye out for Joe McGunOwner's license plates, and pull him over when you see him. No chance for a big shoot-out. He's not going to have his whole arsenal in his car, and even if he does have some of it there, he won't be in an easily defended position. Gun owners are notoriously worried about having their guns taken from them... and many/most refuse to register their current collections for this reason. If you make it a law to register existing firearm collections, then you are basically going to be capable of rounding up all the calm people's guns, and all the nutjobs will still have their unregistered guns. This is an example of attempts at making the country safer punishing the more 'innocent' people without solving the base problems. It might be possible to require all new gun sales to be registered into a database, though, with more success. That's assuming we don't have a sudden growth in black-market style sales in response. Are there any reports on how many crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms, opposed to legal firearms? Something I am a curious about,
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
This article cites sources saying 39% are from illegal sources (theft, straw purchases, corrupt gun shops), and another 39% are from friends or family who may or may not have also obtained them illegally. The data is from 97, but I doubt its changed so much that its invalid.
Point being, the vast majority of guns used in crimes end up in a criminal's hands in such a way that a background check or registry wouldn't stop them.
|
Bump because I didn't see the need to make a new thread for this even if it's not entirely on topic. Besides the question if people should be allowed to carry guns you can also ask: Should we allow children as young as 8 years old allow to shoot UZI's on a shooting range? :-S
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611
Are guns "fun"?
|
Gun owners should be teaching their children about gun safety and usage. We don't need more "Child shoots himself/herself" headlines. So I don't think the parents really did anything wrong here. They got a instructor to do that teaching for them, also smart in my opinion.
And to be honest, they probably thought they got a good one. I watched the video of the shooting. He was doing a good job teaching proper stances, how to hold the weapon and how to aim it. The kid hit the target first shot.
As for the Uzi part, it is a good weapon to learn with. Low muzzle velocity, in single shot mode it has negligible recoil and with very few moving parts, is unlikely to jam or cause issues for the user. Its also small so for a 9 year old girl, she could easily hold it. A rifle or most handguns would have too much kick for her or are too big. Good call at the start with an Uzi in single shot mode I think.
Fucking dumb as shit move to go full auto though. This guy had to know that a 9 year old girl isn't gonna be able to handle a weapon that shoots over 600 rounds per minute!!!! Experienced gun users can barely do it.
|
I firmly believe that proper gun usage should be taught at a young age. Children should be taught what guns are, how they work and what they're for. Ignorance around guns is more likely to lead to accidents than not. It's not that guns are "fun" it's that guns are tools that need proper technique, just like cars. Guns are not without use either.
Furthermore, banning the owning and right to carry arms is basically the government infringing on the rights of civilians to be responsible. There are many, many more responsible gun owners than there are irresponsible people. Banning guns is, imo, telling people they are too stupid to be responsible.
|
I have the feeling you are missing the point. In the Netherlands we even have very strict guidelines for playing yards, so kids can't hurt themselves etc. All with the idea of minimizing risk for children etc. Do you think that firing guns (and give the kid the confidence to fire guns) is in line with the thought of minimizing risk for children?
Is it really a necessity for the kid to learn this?
To continue on this question, i give an example:
In the Netherlands all the kids need to learn how to swim, because we have so much water here. But unfortunately there have been reports of kids drowning during those classes. Is the kid with the UZI kind of the same example?
|
Giving a 9 year Old an UZI is fucked up beyond believe, no matter the enviroment. If you really want to teach CHILDREN (not even a teen) about weapons, give it a small calibre Airgun or somenthing like that, this way at worst a person that gets accidentally hit loses an eye...
You wouldn't let a 9 year old drive a car even with a teacher sitting next to it... But somehow its ok to teach them about firing a fucking Uzi? Which is the equivalent of letting a 9 year old drive a Sportscar.
An Uzi is not a tool. A hunting rifle is a tool. the only purpose of an Uzi is to kill people. You don't call a Handgrenade a "tool", do you?
|
United Kingdom12042 Posts
Do you think that firing guns (and give the kid the confidence to fire guns)
Another thing to add to that is why do you think ANYONE should have the confidence to use a weapon that's primarily used in the modern world to kill other human beings?
|
|
|
Qikz I totally agree with you, with my European point of view.
But I can imagine that if you live within a country with so many guns around (just like my water example) it becomes a necessity to teach your children something.
|
On August 27 2014 18:30 Timmsh wrote:
Qikz I totally agree with you, with my European point of view.
But I can imagine that if you live within a country with so many guns around (just like my water example) it becomes a necessity to teach your children something.
well if you accidentally fall into water, being able to swim helps a lot. if you are accidentally being shot at, being able to handle a gun not so much.
|
On August 27 2014 18:27 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote + Do you think that firing guns (and give the kid the confidence to fire guns) Another thing to add to that is why do you think ANYONE should have the confidence to use a weapon that's primarily used in the modern world to kill other human beings?
Welcome to the real world. Guns act as protection and deterrent. Protection against wild animals for people who live in places like Arizona is a real concern, especially in isolated areas. To say otherwise would be ignorant.
Guns in the form of deterrent is also really important. Women are much less likely to be raped if they are in an area where carrying guns is legal. A potential rapist, thief, murderer is going to think twice if they run the risk of facing the muzzle of a gun during their crime. That deterrent (since the goal isn't to actually shoot people) is only legitimate if the person carrying the gun actually knows how to use it.
Guns being used primarily to kill other humans being is a ridiculous and ignorant statement. If your own point of views are going to be so narrow, you have little reason to be arguing about a topic you know nothing about.
|
If this would be true, then the US would have WAY lower rapes and crimerates in general than europe. It hasn't, your argument is null and void.
You don't need more than a hunting rifle to be save from "wild animals".
|
On August 27 2014 19:07 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 18:27 Qikz wrote: Do you think that firing guns (and give the kid the confidence to fire guns) Another thing to add to that is why do you think ANYONE should have the confidence to use a weapon that's primarily used in the modern world to kill other human beings? Guns in the form of deterrent is also really important. Women are much less likely to be raped if they are in an area where carrying guns is legal. A potential rapist, thief, murderer is going to think twice if they run the risk of facing the muzzle of a gun during their crime. That deterrent (since the goal isn't to actually shoot people) is only legitimate if the person carrying the gun actually knows how to use it.
dumbest thing i have heard this week. congratulations!
User was warned for this post
|
On August 27 2014 19:11 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 19:07 Incognoto wrote:On August 27 2014 18:27 Qikz wrote: Do you think that firing guns (and give the kid the confidence to fire guns) Another thing to add to that is why do you think ANYONE should have the confidence to use a weapon that's primarily used in the modern world to kill other human beings? Guns in the form of deterrent is also really important. Women are much less likely to be raped if they are in an area where carrying guns is legal. A potential rapist, thief, murderer is going to think twice if they run the risk of facing the muzzle of a gun during their crime. That deterrent (since the goal isn't to actually shoot people) is only legitimate if the person carrying the gun actually knows how to use it. dumbest thing i have heard this week. congratulations!
Do you not have anything more constructive to say?
You don't, that's what's unfortunate. You people are free to call my point of views dumb (I notice only europeans having a problem with American gun laws?) yet you aren't actually arguing anything at all.
There have been studies done about guns against violence in the USA. Read up a bit before calling other people dumb without bringing anything else to the table.
The fact remains that guns are used in the USA for protection, deterrent against criminals and recreation. Guns are an integral part of US culture. Responsible gun owners have been around for literally centuries in the USA, why would you ban guns now? Because the media is harping around gun accidents? Why not ban kitchen knives while we're at it? You can be damn fucking sure that you can kill someone with a big kitchen knife. Why are guns any different? Intended role? Knives aren't meant to kill people? Newsflash: neither are guns. People don't usually buy guns with the intention of killing someone. Gun owners are usually screened (criminal records and mental disorders) and and the fact that owning guns is legal makes it easier for authorities to keep track of where the guns are.
You can be sure that the drug dealers of Marseille have no trouble getting their AK-47s. Why would the farmer in Arizona not be allowed to own guns because of idiot criminals in Baltimore?
If guns are such an integral part of the American way of life, it makes sense that children should be introduced to the responsible usage of guns at an early age. The same way that 16 year olds in the USA are allowed to drive. I totally and utterly respect the way responsibility is taught in the USA. It is not* the law's place or role to govern people whether or not they should teach children how to shoot a gun.
Perspective. Please.
*oops forgot the "not" heh
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
