I personally feel its value was diminished greatly when state militias were folded into the national guard. Which goes a long way towards explaining my view on it. The 2nd amendment is one statement and not two; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the commas and not the periods. This was never meant for single individuals to own dozens of guns in a collection, and never considered the force projection of a fully or semi automatic weapon that did not need to reload between shots.
It's an outdated amendment written to protect the rights of state militias which largely do not exist any more.
But I do not suggest killing it - I suggest reframing it to meet the needs of a modern world and the "arms" that exist today.
Nobody thinks us running on laws written regarding computers in the 60s is a good idea today. The tech changed, so the laws had to also.
OK, let's dig into this for a minute. Maybe we can break away from the emotional stuff - I feel pretty low for the way this thread turned sour for @Enc.
You want to reframe it for the needs of a modern world, but I don't know what you mean by that. Rather than put forward my own thoughts first, lemme ask you some questions:
What do you think is the philosophical underpinning of the 2nd, if you think there is one?
Do you think there's any worth to the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald that recognized an individual, incorporated right?
What are the needs of the modern world as it stands today (rather than the magic "all guns vanish" world, for example)?
What would your rewritten 2nd Amendment look like?
There would be minutiae having little to do with the amendment itself, which could then get us to where an amendment alteration makes sense.
All guns MUST be purchased through a state managed broker, even private trades, and all guns must have a registration number that follows it from manufacture to dealer to owner to next owner - a lineage of ownership.
Every single gun that is not a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would need to be stored somewhere non residential. The right to protect your homestead with shotgun or rifle would be protected and remain for all localities that choose to not further restrict it due to population density issues.
I would welcome the introduction of state registered gun clubs that members could join, and after passing a quick background check they could pay a small, REASONABLE dues to be a part of. In turn, they get access to a shooting range, a broad number of guns to shoot, and a place to store their own collection. Pistols, AR-15, fucking machine guns - why not. In the confines of the club, amongst dues paying members.
All current guns in the country can be grandfathered into this ownership state with a free registration, state funded, with no corncern of the prior paper trail, with the understanding that all future sale and trades of guns must follow the rules stated above, and all guns falling outside the purview of a rifle or shotgun must be stored at a gun club you are a member of. Any guns not a part of this system after X years found that are not immediately surrendered to the authorities or deactivated in a permanent fashion is a felony offense full stop.
And after all of that legwork, a modern amendment would be something close to "For those in areas where the laws of nature can threaten the homesteads of the people, the right to bear bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns in the defense of one's property, life and family shall not be infringed"
someone better with the specifics of language can do better than that, but this is a framework that would still let hobbyists have their fun, still let farmers and people in the areas where rifles and shotguns are a part of life still have them, and drastically reduces the number of guns most often used in crime off the streets, especially after a decade or two of this law being in effect.
I'm gonna leave off talking about the guts of the regulatory regime you want imposed (except to say that the end result will be that gun ownership will be the domain of the rich and the white) and dig into the proposed amendment...
What you're proposing bans all semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, all handguns of all kinds, bans hunting, bans gun ownership completely for all metro area citizens, and criminalizes the use of any firearm in defense against a person.
This is your intended result?
I am going to beg that you stop making any mention of registration a race thing, because it is a cheap tactic and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Unless you can show me how car ownership is racist, please drop this tactic, it is not a good one and it makes it hard for me to focus on the rest of the post.
I am proposing a ban on having pistols, and semi-auto weapons outside of a lockbox outside of state-sanctioned clubs, yup.
I am in no way proposing an end to hunting, unless you need a semi automatic weapon to hunt, which I never have. Rifles are great hunting weapons, as are bows, birdshot, buckshot, etc.
OK we'll leave off race for another tangent. I object to referring to it as a 'tactic' though; it's a legitimate point to argue, and your car analogy is mega-bad. I need to go back and reply to Elki's post from a while ago on this anyway, so moving on.
Your proposed revision to the 2nd doesn't protect handguns but does specifically protect certain other guns, so it's reasonable to argue that you left out handguns because you wanted them left out. Since they're not protected, they can be banned entirely, and of course they will be (as demonstrated by DC and Chicago).
Your proposed revision only protects the right to bear arms "in the defense of one's property, life, and family", but only in "areas where the laws of nature can threaten". This does not protect ownership for anything other than defense. Since the Amendment only bars restrictions on defending oneself, restrictions, up to and including an outright ban, on hunting are permissible. Likewise, in areas where "nature" doesn't threaten, no protection of any kind is offered by the Amendment so total bans are on the table.
This is a pretty radical revision. I know the regulatory regime you set out is a lot more permissive, but there's no reason to assume any State would follow it when they can just outright ban huge swaths of weapons, or all weapons (in some areas). We have to work from what the Amendment protects, and assume that governments will restrict as broadly as they can until they run into the Constitutional limit. Why do we have to assume that? Because that's what lots of city governments try to do right now, today... and because when talking about Rights, anything we don't stop the government from doing as part of the foundational document is up for grabs. See also: arguments for a privacy amendment, arguments for abortion rights, arguments against voter ID, and so on.
So if more of the regulatory regime was present in the amendment - essentially, "Furthermore, the states must permit and license the existence of gun clubs in non residential areas and not within 500 yards of a residential zone for the use and ownership of pistols, longarms, and automatic weapons kept within the confines of these premises, and the right to do so shall not be infringed"
Would that allay some of your issues with it?
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
I would word it differently, more "shifting the location of owned guns out of the homes and into secure facilities," but the end result is yes - I am all for less guns being on the street and making legislative moves to achieve that.
Well, let's call a spade a spade. If you can't get to your gun unless the range is open and you go there, and if you're not allowed to transport it yourself from place to place, you've been disarmed.
We are going to start from basics here.
1) I am not a lawmaker
2) Neither are you
And we can go to the pendantic back and forth of trying to find holes in the arguments put here - work that would be better served by actual lawmakers and lawyers, or you can state that the spirit intended (which was the bulk of the work put in the original post above the suggested language for an amendment) is fair or not.
The amendment doesnt say anything about hours of operation so because it doesn't you are disarmed at 2am is a level of hyper specificity that will keep any chance of finding a middle ground from happening.
So before I even continue the dance at this point - is what I wrote in the beginning - the SPIRIT, not THE LETTER which you are trying to find holes in currently, something you could get behind?
What I'm trying to do is not only poke holes in your amendment, but poke holes in the idea of trying to make a specific amendment that doesn't guarantee a principle that we refine through law and the courts. That's why I started out by asking some questions about why we needed a revision at all, and what your principle is.
I can't get behind an amendment that broadly disarms the populace, even one that tries to make an effort to protect hunting and self defense. I don't think that (as an example) Belasco should be prevented from carrying a .38 out on the ranch. She's not in the best of health and managing a 12 gauge pump action for dealing with rattlesnakes is outside her ability right now.
I also don't think she should be prevented from carrying her .38 in a grocery store, and that gets to a philosophical difference here that we're going to have a lot of trouble bridging.
Is there any gun control law you would get behind? Because kind of by definition, any sort of gun control would result in some level of disarmament.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I don't feel comfortable saying "Accidents happen around guns, so we should have government officials do most of the culling so you don't hurt yourself"
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Once again I wasn't saying we ban hunting, I just don't think we have to advocate for young people to hunt! Good lord guys at I just suggested for animal culling purposes we literally have game wardens who can accomplish this task.
Why not teach younger folks to? It teaches responsibility, personal reliance, troubleshooting skills, patience, hard work, a respect for life, connects them to environment.....
I guess because I don't hunt, I don't want to teach my son to hunt, and in our ever increasing technology centric world I think there are more important things to impart on the next generation? I mean I can teach my boy all of those things without ever having him pick up a gun.
That's on you. Absolutely zero people are forcing you to do so.
But you cannot say OTHER people cant do something just because YOU wouldn't do something. That isn't the way this country (should) work. That's not how things are done.
You know that. I've seen you advocate it in other threads.
AGAIN FOR THE CHEAP SEATS I NEVER SAID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HUNT! I just said I don't believe we necessarily are required to have civilians hunters. That's all! Syndalis said we need to advocate for the younger generation to hunt and I said I don't think we do. I never ever ever ever fucking said at anytime people shouldn't hunt. STOP SAYING I FUCKING DID I SWEAR TO CHRIST!
Bah never-mind my original reply/post
I'm trying to illustrate to you the idea that the is plenty of great stuff that comes from having civilian hunters. Just because you dont want to hunt doesnt invalidate all the good stuff hunting, and hunters, do.
I don't feel comfortable saying "Accidents happen around guns, so we should have government officials do most of the culling so you don't hurt yourself"
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
Major difference between cutting your fingers and getting shot possibly killed while hunting. Also I trust Game wardens to do culling more than I do regular old civilian hunters, if only to cut down on poaching and other bad practices that civilian hunters are known to do.
And again I do not at any time want to ban civilian hunting. I just again think that for purposes of culling and management of wildlife if we need that, we should trust that to governmental officials who's job is literally managing the wild life like game wardens.
Nanny state is a bullshit conservative throw away. Government regulates things that are dangerous to you all the time, witness all those vehicle and food recalls. Should we let people drive dangerous cars and eat contaminated food out of fear of the "nanny" state.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I don't feel comfortable saying "Accidents happen around guns, so we should have government officials do most of the culling so you don't hurt yourself"
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
City I grew up near had a cull of deer a few years ago. The city just hired some professionals to do it. I think that's a better plan for major culls than handing out heaps of permits to the local hunters, who aren't idiots, but aren't exactly well practiced in industrial scale deer hunting. There's no nanny state in there anywhere, just the realization that all hunting situations aren't equal.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
This argument will always go to self defense. Which is perfectly logical.
I personally feel its value was diminished greatly when state militias were folded into the national guard. Which goes a long way towards explaining my view on it. The 2nd amendment is one statement and not two; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the commas and not the periods. This was never meant for single individuals to own dozens of guns in a collection, and never considered the force projection of a fully or semi automatic weapon that did not need to reload between shots.
It's an outdated amendment written to protect the rights of state militias which largely do not exist any more.
But I do not suggest killing it - I suggest reframing it to meet the needs of a modern world and the "arms" that exist today.
Nobody thinks us running on laws written regarding computers in the 60s is a good idea today. The tech changed, so the laws had to also.
OK, let's dig into this for a minute. Maybe we can break away from the emotional stuff - I feel pretty low for the way this thread turned sour for @Enc.
You want to reframe it for the needs of a modern world, but I don't know what you mean by that. Rather than put forward my own thoughts first, lemme ask you some questions:
What do you think is the philosophical underpinning of the 2nd, if you think there is one?
Do you think there's any worth to the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald that recognized an individual, incorporated right?
What are the needs of the modern world as it stands today (rather than the magic "all guns vanish" world, for example)?
What would your rewritten 2nd Amendment look like?
There would be minutiae having little to do with the amendment itself, which could then get us to where an amendment alteration makes sense.
All guns MUST be purchased through a state managed broker, even private trades, and all guns must have a registration number that follows it from manufacture to dealer to owner to next owner - a lineage of ownership.
Every single gun that is not a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would need to be stored somewhere non residential. The right to protect your homestead with shotgun or rifle would be protected and remain for all localities that choose to not further restrict it due to population density issues.
I would welcome the introduction of state registered gun clubs that members could join, and after passing a quick background check they could pay a small, REASONABLE dues to be a part of. In turn, they get access to a shooting range, a broad number of guns to shoot, and a place to store their own collection. Pistols, AR-15, fucking machine guns - why not. In the confines of the club, amongst dues paying members.
All current guns in the country can be grandfathered into this ownership state with a free registration, state funded, with no corncern of the prior paper trail, with the understanding that all future sale and trades of guns must follow the rules stated above, and all guns falling outside the purview of a rifle or shotgun must be stored at a gun club you are a member of. Any guns not a part of this system after X years found that are not immediately surrendered to the authorities or deactivated in a permanent fashion is a felony offense full stop.
And after all of that legwork, a modern amendment would be something close to "For those in areas where the laws of nature can threaten the homesteads of the people, the right to bear bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns in the defense of one's property, life and family shall not be infringed"
someone better with the specifics of language can do better than that, but this is a framework that would still let hobbyists have their fun, still let farmers and people in the areas where rifles and shotguns are a part of life still have them, and drastically reduces the number of guns most often used in crime off the streets, especially after a decade or two of this law being in effect.
I'm gonna leave off talking about the guts of the regulatory regime you want imposed (except to say that the end result will be that gun ownership will be the domain of the rich and the white) and dig into the proposed amendment...
What you're proposing bans all semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, all handguns of all kinds, bans hunting, bans gun ownership completely for all metro area citizens, and criminalizes the use of any firearm in defense against a person.
This is your intended result?
I am going to beg that you stop making any mention of registration a race thing, because it is a cheap tactic and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Unless you can show me how car ownership is racist, please drop this tactic, it is not a good one and it makes it hard for me to focus on the rest of the post.
I am proposing a ban on having pistols, and semi-auto weapons outside of a lockbox outside of state-sanctioned clubs, yup.
I am in no way proposing an end to hunting, unless you need a semi automatic weapon to hunt, which I never have. Rifles are great hunting weapons, as are bows, birdshot, buckshot, etc.
OK we'll leave off race for another tangent. I object to referring to it as a 'tactic' though; it's a legitimate point to argue, and your car analogy is mega-bad. I need to go back and reply to Elki's post from a while ago on this anyway, so moving on.
Your proposed revision to the 2nd doesn't protect handguns but does specifically protect certain other guns, so it's reasonable to argue that you left out handguns because you wanted them left out. Since they're not protected, they can be banned entirely, and of course they will be (as demonstrated by DC and Chicago).
Your proposed revision only protects the right to bear arms "in the defense of one's property, life, and family", but only in "areas where the laws of nature can threaten". This does not protect ownership for anything other than defense. Since the Amendment only bars restrictions on defending oneself, restrictions, up to and including an outright ban, on hunting are permissible. Likewise, in areas where "nature" doesn't threaten, no protection of any kind is offered by the Amendment so total bans are on the table.
This is a pretty radical revision. I know the regulatory regime you set out is a lot more permissive, but there's no reason to assume any State would follow it when they can just outright ban huge swaths of weapons, or all weapons (in some areas). We have to work from what the Amendment protects, and assume that governments will restrict as broadly as they can until they run into the Constitutional limit. Why do we have to assume that? Because that's what lots of city governments try to do right now, today... and because when talking about Rights, anything we don't stop the government from doing as part of the foundational document is up for grabs. See also: arguments for a privacy amendment, arguments for abortion rights, arguments against voter ID, and so on.
So if more of the regulatory regime was present in the amendment - essentially, "Furthermore, the states must permit and license the existence of gun clubs in non residential areas and not within 500 yards of a residential zone for the use and ownership of pistols, longarms, and automatic weapons kept within the confines of these premises, and the right to do so shall not be infringed"
Would that allay some of your issues with it?
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
I would word it differently, more "shifting the location of owned guns out of the homes and into secure facilities," but the end result is yes - I am all for less guns being on the street and making legislative moves to achieve that.
Well, let's call a spade a spade. If you can't get to your gun unless the range is open and you go there, and if you're not allowed to transport it yourself from place to place, you've been disarmed.
We are going to start from basics here.
1) I am not a lawmaker
2) Neither are you
And we can go to the pendantic back and forth of trying to find holes in the arguments put here - work that would be better served by actual lawmakers and lawyers, or you can state that the spirit intended (which was the bulk of the work put in the original post above the suggested language for an amendment) is fair or not.
The amendment doesnt say anything about hours of operation so because it doesn't you are disarmed at 2am is a level of hyper specificity that will keep any chance of finding a middle ground from happening.
So before I even continue the dance at this point - is what I wrote in the beginning - the SPIRIT, not THE LETTER which you are trying to find holes in currently, something you could get behind?
What I'm trying to do is not only poke holes in your amendment, but poke holes in the idea of trying to make a specific amendment that doesn't guarantee a principle that we refine through law and the courts. That's why I started out by asking some questions about why we needed a revision at all, and what your principle is.
I can't get behind an amendment that broadly disarms the populace, even one that tries to make an effort to protect hunting and self defense. I don't think that (as an example) Belasco should be prevented from carrying a .38 out on the ranch. She's not in the best of health and managing a 12 gauge pump action for dealing with rattlesnakes is outside her ability right now.
I also don't think she should be prevented from carrying her .38 in a grocery store, and that gets to a philosophical difference here that we're going to have a lot of trouble bridging.
Is there any gun control law you would get behind? Because kind of by definition, any sort of gun control would result in some level of disarmament.
Yes, which is why I said 'broadly". I'm trying to be very careful with my terminology!
I mentioned several, much earlier in the thread. I think all Constitutional rights secured to the individual have some limit at the places where they impact society. I support licensing, I conditionally support firearms training classes, I support background checks and better reporting of mental health issues looped into that check. I'm unhappy with but concede that the arguments are very good for a "cooling off" period. If it needs to be said, I support the restrictions on fully automatic weapons and on crew-served weapons and most explosives / rockets.
I don't feel comfortable saying "Accidents happen around guns, so we should have government officials do most of the culling so you don't hurt yourself"
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
City I grew up near had a cull of deer a few years ago. The city just hired some professionals to do it. I think that's a better plan for major culls than handing out heaps of permits to the local hunters, who aren't idiots, but aren't exactly well practiced in industrial scale deer hunting. There's no nanny state in there anywhere, just the realization that all hunting situations aren't equal.
Thank you! Professionals, game wardens, whoever, people who are tasked with doing this on a scale that will assist the population but not harm it. And then again you have a chain of possession with the meat so you can have it delivered to food banks and low income food assistance programs without worrying about contamination.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
This argument will always go to self defense. Which is perfectly logical.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
Hunting, pest control, target shooting, home defense, the same reasons for any gun really. It's like saying make an argument for why you need an automatic transmission instead of a manual. The operation is different but the end result is the same.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
This argument will always go to self defense. Which is perfectly logical.
Wild boar charge really fast.
Thats actually really true. Man those things are ugly and mean
I don't feel comfortable saying "Accidents happen around guns, so we should have government officials do most of the culling so you don't hurt yourself"
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
Major difference between cutting your fingers and getting shot possibly killed while hunting. Also I trust Game wardens to do culling more than I do regular old civilian hunters, if only to cut down on poaching and other bad practices that civilian hunters are known to do.
And again I do not at any time want to ban civilian hunting. I just again think that for purposes of culling and management of wildlife if we need that, we should trust that to governmental officials who's job is literally managing the wild life like game wardens.
Nanny state is a bullshit conservative throw away. Government regulates things that are dangerous to you all the time, witness all those vehicle and food recalls. Should we let people drive dangerous cars and eat contaminated food out of fear of the "nanny" state.
I don't really care.
We don't need a nanny state because people do dumb shit.
There's a time and place where we need to do that "you had a boo-boo" isn't one of those. Yes accidents happen, sometimes even really horrific ones. That's crazy, I don't give a shit.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
As a general rule, YOU need to be the one to prove why someone cant have something. Its not their job to prove why they get to keep the things they already have.
If you are trying to take something from someone, its your job to tell them why they should give it to you.
Once again I wasn't saying we ban hunting, I just don't think we have to advocate for young people to hunt! Good lord guys at I just suggested for animal culling purposes we literally have game wardens who can accomplish this task.
Why not teach younger folks to? It teaches responsibility, personal reliance, troubleshooting skills, patience, hard work, a respect for life, connects them to environment.....
I guess because I don't hunt, I don't want to teach my son to hunt, and in our ever increasing technology centric world I think there are more important things to impart on the next generation? I mean I can teach my boy all of those things without ever having him pick up a gun.
That's on you. Absolutely zero people are forcing you to do so.
But you cannot say OTHER people cant do something just because YOU wouldn't do something. That isn't the way this country (should) work. That's not how things are done.
You know that. I've seen you advocate it in other threads.
AGAIN FOR THE CHEAP SEATS I NEVER SAID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HUNT! I just said I don't believe we necessarily are required to have civilians hunters. That's all! Syndalis said we need to advocate for the younger generation to hunt and I said I don't think we do. I never ever ever ever fucking said at anytime people shouldn't hunt. STOP SAYING I FUCKING DID I SWEAR TO CHRIST!
Bah never-mind my original reply/post
I'm trying to illustrate to you the idea that the is plenty of great stuff that comes from having civilian hunters. Just because you dont want to hunt doesnt invalidate all the good stuff hunting, and hunters, do.
So, to that end, carry on.
And that has zero to do with the culling thing. Which was all I was saying. You keep coming back to this made up argument that I said I didn't want civilian hunters. I said no such thing. I said I don't want them as our means for doing culls or population management. I never said they can't hunt for sport or food.
Though I will say it saddens me as an american there are people who are poor enough in my country that they have to hunt for food, like I pay taxes, I thought paying taxes meant people in america don't go hungry and aren't forced to go Oregon trail to feed themselves.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I don't feel comfortable saying "Accidents happen around guns, so we should have government officials do most of the culling so you don't hurt yourself"
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
City I grew up near had a cull of deer a few years ago. The city just hired some professionals to do it. I think that's a better plan for major culls than handing out heaps of permits to the local hunters, who aren't idiots, but aren't exactly well practiced in industrial scale deer hunting. There's no nanny state in there anywhere, just the realization that all hunting situations aren't equal.
That's not what I'm talking about.
There's two comments there.
One was "sometimes people have accidents with guns, we should make laws so they don't and minimize people owning guns" -- which is stupid, and nannystateish
The second was "we should have wardens cull herds"
Which is wasteful.
Like I said, I don't really give a fuck if jim-bob shoots off his dick because he's careless with his gun, those are pointless laws and that's going to be a source of contention about regulation flat out. If your laws are so onerous that they don't let reasonable people do things because you're scared, you can just get lost.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
Hunting, pest control, target shooting, home defense, the same reasons for any gun really. It's like saying make an argument for why you need an automatic transmission instead of a manual. The operation is different but the end result is the same.
So, purposes that are equally possible with bolt action rifles and shotguns. The only difference is that the lower rate of fire (Yes, yes, when not operated by a Marine trained sharpshooter) decreases their utility as a weapon of mass murder.
And yes, a lower rate of fire does make it more difficult to kill large numbers of running people. That is why the world's militaries largely moved away from bolt action rifles except in very specific circumstances.
Once again I wasn't saying we ban hunting, I just don't think we have to advocate for young people to hunt! Good lord guys at I just suggested for animal culling purposes we literally have game wardens who can accomplish this task.
Why not teach younger folks to? It teaches responsibility, personal reliance, troubleshooting skills, patience, hard work, a respect for life, connects them to environment.....
I guess because I don't hunt, I don't want to teach my son to hunt, and in our ever increasing technology centric world I think there are more important things to impart on the next generation? I mean I can teach my boy all of those things without ever having him pick up a gun.
That's on you. Absolutely zero people are forcing you to do so.
But you cannot say OTHER people cant do something just because YOU wouldn't do something. That isn't the way this country (should) work. That's not how things are done.
You know that. I've seen you advocate it in other threads.
AGAIN FOR THE CHEAP SEATS I NEVER SAID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HUNT! I just said I don't believe we necessarily are required to have civilians hunters. That's all! Syndalis said we need to advocate for the younger generation to hunt and I said I don't think we do. I never ever ever ever fucking said at anytime people shouldn't hunt. STOP SAYING I FUCKING DID I SWEAR TO CHRIST!
Bah never-mind my original reply/post
I'm trying to illustrate to you the idea that the is plenty of great stuff that comes from having civilian hunters. Just because you dont want to hunt doesnt invalidate all the good stuff hunting, and hunters, do.
So, to that end, carry on.
And that has zero to do with the culling thing. Which was all I was saying. You keep coming back to this made up argument that I said I didn't want civilian hunters. I said no such thing. I said I don't want them as our means for doing culls or population management. I never said they can't hunt for sport or food.
Though I will say it saddens me as an american there are people who are poor enough in my country that they have to hunt for food, like I pay taxes, I thought paying taxes meant people in america don't go hungry and aren't forced to go Oregon trail to feed themselves.
I find this attitude strange, but it's gotta just be a cultural thing.
Hunting for food isn't a bad thing or something that should be saddening. There's nothing upsetting to me about the idea that we need to give less assistance to people because they have the ability and opportunity to fend for themselves.
Once again I wasn't saying we ban hunting, I just don't think we have to advocate for young people to hunt! Good lord guys at I just suggested for animal culling purposes we literally have game wardens who can accomplish this task.
Why not teach younger folks to? It teaches responsibility, personal reliance, troubleshooting skills, patience, hard work, a respect for life, connects them to environment.....
I guess because I don't hunt, I don't want to teach my son to hunt, and in our ever increasing technology centric world I think there are more important things to impart on the next generation? I mean I can teach my boy all of those things without ever having him pick up a gun.
That's on you. Absolutely zero people are forcing you to do so.
But you cannot say OTHER people cant do something just because YOU wouldn't do something. That isn't the way this country (should) work. That's not how things are done.
You know that. I've seen you advocate it in other threads.
AGAIN FOR THE CHEAP SEATS I NEVER SAID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HUNT! I just said I don't believe we necessarily are required to have civilians hunters. That's all! Syndalis said we need to advocate for the younger generation to hunt and I said I don't think we do. I never ever ever ever fucking said at anytime people shouldn't hunt. STOP SAYING I FUCKING DID I SWEAR TO CHRIST!
Bah never-mind my original reply/post
I'm trying to illustrate to you the idea that the is plenty of great stuff that comes from having civilian hunters. Just because you dont want to hunt doesnt invalidate all the good stuff hunting, and hunters, do.
So, to that end, carry on.
And that has zero to do with the culling thing. Which was all I was saying. You keep coming back to this made up argument that I said I didn't want civilian hunters. I said no such thing. I said I don't want them as our means for doing culls or population management. I never said they can't hunt for sport or food.
Though I will say it saddens me as an american there are people who are poor enough in my country that they have to hunt for food, like I pay taxes, I thought paying taxes meant people in america don't go hungry and aren't forced to go Oregon trail to feed themselves.
You're not out right saying it, but you're making it really clear you don't give a fuck if it goes away.
It may not be direct but it's certainly "meh I don't care, let's just make laws and if it reduces the gun population to 1% that's fine" which is essentially banning them.
People in America choose that lifestyle because they enjoy it. They like living in the wilderness and hunting. Regardless of what you do or believe, there are people that love to go camping, fishing, hunting, or live in the mountains and see their neighbors once a year and never step foot in an office or downtown.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Once again I wasn't saying we ban hunting, I just don't think we have to advocate for young people to hunt! Good lord guys at I just suggested for animal culling purposes we literally have game wardens who can accomplish this task.
Why not teach younger folks to? It teaches responsibility, personal reliance, troubleshooting skills, patience, hard work, a respect for life, connects them to environment.....
I guess because I don't hunt, I don't want to teach my son to hunt, and in our ever increasing technology centric world I think there are more important things to impart on the next generation? I mean I can teach my boy all of those things without ever having him pick up a gun.
That's on you. Absolutely zero people are forcing you to do so.
But you cannot say OTHER people cant do something just because YOU wouldn't do something. That isn't the way this country (should) work. That's not how things are done.
You know that. I've seen you advocate it in other threads.
AGAIN FOR THE CHEAP SEATS I NEVER SAID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HUNT! I just said I don't believe we necessarily are required to have civilians hunters. That's all! Syndalis said we need to advocate for the younger generation to hunt and I said I don't think we do. I never ever ever ever fucking said at anytime people shouldn't hunt. STOP SAYING I FUCKING DID I SWEAR TO CHRIST!
Bah never-mind my original reply/post
I'm trying to illustrate to you the idea that the is plenty of great stuff that comes from having civilian hunters. Just because you dont want to hunt doesnt invalidate all the good stuff hunting, and hunters, do.
So, to that end, carry on.
And that has zero to do with the culling thing. Which was all I was saying. You keep coming back to this made up argument that I said I didn't want civilian hunters. I said no such thing. I said I don't want them as our means for doing culls or population management. I never said they can't hunt for sport or food.
Though I will say it saddens me as an american there are people who are poor enough in my country that they have to hunt for food, like I pay taxes, I thought paying taxes meant people in america don't go hungry and aren't forced to go Oregon trail to feed themselves.
Reading back through i can see the thin line between those two points.
In other words, i see what you were saying. Its a thin seperation, but one that you did -indeed- make.
You're essentially saying "I don't really like that way of life, and I don't think you should get to have it because some of the tenements share some really hard to make tangent with crazy gun nuts, so fuck off, we'll just pay someone to do it instead."
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
Hunting, pest control, target shooting, home defense, the same reasons for any gun really. It's like saying make an argument for why you need an automatic transmission instead of a manual. The operation is different but the end result is the same.
So, purposes that are equally possible with bolt action rifles and shotguns. The only difference is that the lower rate of fire (Yes, yes, when not operated by a Marine trained sharpshooter) decreases their utility as a weapon of mass murder.
And yes, a lower rate of fire does make it more difficult to kill large numbers of running people. That is why the world's militaries largely moved away from bolt action rifles except in very specific circumstances.
Not letting it get into the hands of someone who intends to kill people in the first place decreases their utility as a weapon of mass murder by 100%. I'd much rather focus on the cause of and how to stop spree killers than say "well, at least they only had a bolt action rifle."
I don't feel comfortable saying "Accidents happen around guns, so we should have government officials do most of the culling so you don't hurt yourself"
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
We do it for everything else, the only thing preventing that for guns is the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't applicable to knives, they are to cars as a dangerous item - and both require licenses to have. Or should. The difference is with vehicles they can be used for anything besides cold blooded murder.
+1
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
And since I am some part in starting this tangent, I did not say we should make hunting mandatory and make sure kids use guns.
I said we should encourage hunting in the same way we encourage all sorts of activities because we are actually doing a piss poor job of that considering the overpopulation issue
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I don't feel comfortable saying "Accidents happen around guns, so we should have government officials do most of the culling so you don't hurt yourself"
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
We do it for everything else, the only thing preventing that for guns is the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't applicable to knives, they are to cars as a dangerous item - and both require licenses to have. Or should. The difference is with vehicles they can be used for anything besides cold blooded murder.
We're talking about hunting accidents now, not gangbangers shooting up the hood.
So that needs to be taken in context.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
No I'm not Bowen, but you read into my arguments what you want to because it allows you to overreact to them. I am saying for culls, professionals are better than civilians. Period that's all I'm saying with regards to that form of hunting. For reasons like management of the wildlife, danger to the hunters, and issues with poaching.
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
No I'm not Bowen, but you read into my arguments what you want to because it allows you to overreact to them. I am saying for culls, professionals are better than civilians. Period that's all I'm saying with regards to that form of hunting. For reasons like management of the wildlife, danger to the hunters, and issues with poaching.
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
It's hard to even read your arguments because it's so full of vitriol I don't know what point you're trying to make.
I don't see the point of hiring game wardens, you do, we do a fine enough job right now, we can do slightly better. I'm sure there's poachers in the US, but that's kind of random, and not even really a big deal. Edit: we can hire game wardens to handle the management, but there's no reason we can't have some sort of program to let hunters take part. But you seem to keep waffling back and forth between only game wardens should be in charge, to "I'm not saying people can't hunt, but I don't think they should."
Like I said about your second half, some people CHOOSE those things because they enjoy it. You could pay 100% of your income in taxes to help feed people and someone would throw the money back in your face and go live in the mountains and hunt because it's enjoyable to them. You can't legislate that, why would you even want to? You don't like it? Great. I don't like Catholics. What rights do I have over them?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
Hunting, pest control, target shooting, home defense, the same reasons for any gun really. It's like saying make an argument for why you need an automatic transmission instead of a manual. The operation is different but the end result is the same.
So, purposes that are equally possible with bolt action rifles and shotguns. The only difference is that the lower rate of fire (Yes, yes, when not operated by a Marine trained sharpshooter) decreases their utility as a weapon of mass murder.
And yes, a lower rate of fire does make it more difficult to kill large numbers of running people. That is why the world's militaries largely moved away from bolt action rifles except in very specific circumstances.
Not letting it get into the hands of someone who intends to kill people in the first place decreases their utility as a weapon of mass murder by 100%. I'd much rather focus on the cause of and how to stop spree killers than say "well, at least they only had a bolt action rifle."
You left out the latter part of that quote, "Well, at least they only had a bolt action rifle. Otherwise, more people could have been killed."
People in America choose that lifestyle because they enjoy it.
People choose to get drunk too, we still regular that and punish them severely when they fuck up.
They like living in the wilderness and hunting. Regardless of what you do or believe, there are people that love to go camping, fishing, hunting, or live in the mountains and see their neighbors once a year and never step foot in an office or downtown.
That's nice but that doesn't mean their lifestyle is immune from government regulation. They're using dangerous weapons, that comes with enormous responsibility and it'd be unwise for the government to look the other way when accidents happen or they misuse their weapons to harm people. Also, that lifestyle isn't for every gun owner.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
Hunting, pest control, target shooting, home defense, the same reasons for any gun really. It's like saying make an argument for why you need an automatic transmission instead of a manual. The operation is different but the end result is the same.
So, purposes that are equally possible with bolt action rifles and shotguns. The only difference is that the lower rate of fire (Yes, yes, when not operated by a Marine trained sharpshooter) decreases their utility as a weapon of mass murder.
And yes, a lower rate of fire does make it more difficult to kill large numbers of running people. That is why the world's militaries largely moved away from bolt action rifles except in very specific circumstances.
Not letting it get into the hands of someone who intends to kill people in the first place decreases their utility as a weapon of mass murder by 100%. I'd much rather focus on the cause of and how to stop spree killers than say "well, at least they only had a bolt action rifle."
You left out the latter part of that quote, "Well, at least they only had a bolt action rifle. Otherwise, more people could have been killed."
How many people, would you say, are you ok with being killed in a mass shooting then?
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
Hunting, pest control, target shooting, home defense, the same reasons for any gun really. It's like saying make an argument for why you need an automatic transmission instead of a manual. The operation is different but the end result is the same.
The automatic transmission has distinct advantages and disadvantages to a stick shift. Same as a semi-automatic vs a bolt-action. A bolt-action rifle will fire a single round just as fast as a semi, but if you're looking to fire multiple rounds in a short period of time (which is dependent on the person's 'people I hate' list) then the semi automatic is the go to choice.
Are the advantages that a semi-automatic weapon has for hunting, pest control, target shooting, etc. more important than the disadvantages that a bolt-action would impose on a mass shooting situation?
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
People in America choose that lifestyle because they enjoy it.
People choose to get drunk too, we still regular that and punish them severely when they fuck up.
They like living in the wilderness and hunting. Regardless of what you do or believe, there are people that love to go camping, fishing, hunting, or live in the mountains and see their neighbors once a year and never step foot in an office or downtown.
That's nice but that doesn't mean their lifestyle is immune from government regulation. They're using dangerous weapons, that comes with enormous responsibility and it'd be unwise for the government to look the other way when accidents happen or they misuse their weapons to harm people. Also, that lifestyle isn't for every gun owner.
So what, exactly, kind of law would you make that we don't already have in regards to someone accidentally discharging their weapon and hurting themselves?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
Hunting, pest control, target shooting, home defense, the same reasons for any gun really. It's like saying make an argument for why you need an automatic transmission instead of a manual. The operation is different but the end result is the same.
So, purposes that are equally possible with bolt action rifles and shotguns. The only difference is that the lower rate of fire (Yes, yes, when not operated by a Marine trained sharpshooter) decreases their utility as a weapon of mass murder.
And yes, a lower rate of fire does make it more difficult to kill large numbers of running people. That is why the world's militaries largely moved away from bolt action rifles except in very specific circumstances.
Not letting it get into the hands of someone who intends to kill people in the first place decreases their utility as a weapon of mass murder by 100%. I'd much rather focus on the cause of and how to stop spree killers than say "well, at least they only had a bolt action rifle."
You left out the latter part of that quote, "Well, at least they only had a bolt action rifle. Otherwise, more people could have been killed."
How many people, would you say, are you ok with being killed in a mass shooting then?
Fewer rather than more.
Phillishere on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Hey spool, I'm trying to understand your basis for supporting certain gun regulations.
So let's suppose a certain regulation A. Because we live in a huge country, any regulation will necessarily have very real impacts on human lives, and lots of life and death situations occurring at the fringes. With 300M people, even something like regulating ice cream ingredients could result in people losing their lives, directly or indirectly. Agreed?
Further, I assume that your general support for certain kinds of regulation means you accept that regulations can save lives. Also agreed?
Let's say Regulation A pertains to a certain kind of handgun. Let's suppose that passing the regulation makes it harder for Granny Arthritis to obtain a handgun, and so she winds up using a bolt action rifle, which she is unable to properly wield. As a result, she is killed by badgers. This regulation costs her, and a small number of other people, their lives. Let us call this number X.
Meanwhile, a number of other people who would have acquired a handgun and committed murders with them are unable to do so, resulting in a number of lives being saved. Let's call this number Y.
As well, a bunch of people who like to go target shooting with this handgun are unable to do so. There is no human cost here, but several people are inconvenienced, or otherwise made to "suffer" in a non life or death manner. Call this number Z.
Given X, Y and Z, how do you determine whether or not you support this regulation? Is there a situation in which Y far outpaces X that would still make you oppose the regulation? Do you consider Y particularly relevant, or is it more about X and Z?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I don't feel comfortable saying "Accidents happen around guns, so we should have government officials do most of the culling so you don't hurt yourself"
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
We do it for everything else, the only thing preventing that for guns is the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't applicable to knives, they are to cars as a dangerous item - and both require licenses to have. Or should. The difference is with vehicles they can be used for anything besides cold blooded murder.
We're talking about hunting accidents now, not gangbangers shooting up the hood.
So that needs to be taken in context.
Gang bangers aren't the only gun owners who kill people with their weapons. Anyone who has a gun or can access a gun is liable to use it for murder if they are in the right circumstances and no-one will see it coming before it's to late. School shootings and cinema attacks aren't made by gang bangers.
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
Hunting, pest control, target shooting, home defense, the same reasons for any gun really. It's like saying make an argument for why you need an automatic transmission instead of a manual. The operation is different but the end result is the same.
The automatic transmission has distinct advantages and disadvantages to a stick shift. Same as a semi-automatic vs a bolt-action. A bolt-action rifle will fire a single round just as fast as a semi, but if you're looking to fire multiple rounds in a short period of time (which is dependent on the person's 'people I hate' list) then the semi automatic is the go to choice.
Are the advantages that a semi-automatic weapon has for hunting, pest control, target shooting, etc. more important than the disadvantages that a bolt-action would impose on a mass shooting situation?
If you're talking about aimed fire, both semi-auto and bolt action rifles would be firing at about the same rate, since the re-set and re-targeting after each shot with the semi-auto wouldn't be much shorter than cycling the bolt on a bolt action. Unaimed fire, a semi-auto would be firing more since there's no lag cycling the bolt, but unaimed bolt action fire wouldn't exactly be slow either.
I don't feel comfortable saying "Accidents happen around guns, so we should have government officials do most of the culling so you don't hurt yourself"
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
We do it for everything else, the only thing preventing that for guns is the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't applicable to knives, they are to cars as a dangerous item - and both require licenses to have. Or should. The difference is with vehicles they can be used for anything besides cold blooded murder.
We're talking about hunting accidents now, not gangbangers shooting up the hood.
So that needs to be taken in context.
Gang bangers aren't the only gun owners who kill people with their weapons. Anyone who has a gun or can access a gun is liable to use it for murder if they are in the right circumstances and no-one will see it coming before it's to late. School shootings and cinema attacks aren't made by gang bangers.
Yes we already talked about how we could fix that and most of us agreed on it a few pages back and then there was talks about how those laws could conceivably be racist.
Then most of us agreed that hunting and certain type of ownership is okay.
And then there was a tangent that hunting is risky so we should minimize it in case someone hurts themselves and leave it to "professionals" because of poachers and someone accidentally hurting themselves or others while hunting.
Now, a good thing would be to require everyone to wear bright colored vests while hunting. But it seems most of what has been posted so far was "rubble rubble rubble guns hurt people rubble rubble rubble", so it's a bit hard to talk about this.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I don't feel comfortable saying "Accidents happen around guns, so we should have government officials do most of the culling so you don't hurt yourself"
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
We do it for everything else, the only thing preventing that for guns is the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't applicable to knives, they are to cars as a dangerous item - and both require licenses to have. Or should. The difference is with vehicles they can be used for anything besides cold blooded murder.
We're talking about hunting accidents now, not gangbangers shooting up the hood.
So that needs to be taken in context.
Gang bangers aren't the only gun owners who kill people with their weapons. Anyone who has a gun or can access a gun is liable to use it for murder if they are in the right circumstances and no-one will see it coming before it's to late. School shootings and cinema attacks aren't made by gang bangers.
A little off-topic, but the North Carolina-Virginia-New Jersey-New York firearm smuggling corridor is quite literally based on gang bangers from New York driving down to rural NC/VA gun stores and filling up their trunks with guns. The "rural gun lifestyle" and major urban crime are connected by the simple fact that the laxer gun laws in hunting-friendly areas also cater to professional gun traffickers.
You can't disconnect the parts of the country when you legislate.
Posts
Is there any gun control law you would get behind? Because kind of by definition, any sort of gun control would result in some level of disarmament.
People cut their fingers every day, or get in accidents.
We don't need a nanny state.
Bah never-mind my original reply/post
I'm trying to illustrate to you the idea that the is plenty of great stuff that comes from having civilian hunters. Just because you dont want to hunt doesnt invalidate all the good stuff hunting, and hunters, do.
So, to that end, carry on.
Major difference between cutting your fingers and getting shot possibly killed while hunting. Also I trust Game wardens to do culling more than I do regular old civilian hunters, if only to cut down on poaching and other bad practices that civilian hunters are known to do.
And again I do not at any time want to ban civilian hunting. I just again think that for purposes of culling and management of wildlife if we need that, we should trust that to governmental officials who's job is literally managing the wild life like game wardens.
Nanny state is a bullshit conservative throw away. Government regulates things that are dangerous to you all the time, witness all those vehicle and food recalls. Should we let people drive dangerous cars and eat contaminated food out of fear of the "nanny" state.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
City I grew up near had a cull of deer a few years ago. The city just hired some professionals to do it. I think that's a better plan for major culls than handing out heaps of permits to the local hunters, who aren't idiots, but aren't exactly well practiced in industrial scale deer hunting. There's no nanny state in there anywhere, just the realization that all hunting situations aren't equal.
This argument will always go to self defense. Which is perfectly logical.
Yes, which is why I said 'broadly". I'm trying to be very careful with my terminology!
I mentioned several, much earlier in the thread. I think all Constitutional rights secured to the individual have some limit at the places where they impact society. I support licensing, I conditionally support firearms training classes, I support background checks and better reporting of mental health issues looped into that check. I'm unhappy with but concede that the arguments are very good for a "cooling off" period. If it needs to be said, I support the restrictions on fully automatic weapons and on crew-served weapons and most explosives / rockets.
Thank you! Professionals, game wardens, whoever, people who are tasked with doing this on a scale that will assist the population but not harm it. And then again you have a chain of possession with the meat so you can have it delivered to food banks and low income food assistance programs without worrying about contamination.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Wild boar charge really fast.
Hunting, pest control, target shooting, home defense, the same reasons for any gun really. It's like saying make an argument for why you need an automatic transmission instead of a manual. The operation is different but the end result is the same.
Thats actually really true. Man those things are ugly and mean
I don't really care.
We don't need a nanny state because people do dumb shit.
There's a time and place where we need to do that "you had a boo-boo" isn't one of those. Yes accidents happen, sometimes even really horrific ones. That's crazy, I don't give a shit.
Or at least A-10 Warthogs.
As a general rule, YOU need to be the one to prove why someone cant have something. Its not their job to prove why they get to keep the things they already have.
If you are trying to take something from someone, its your job to tell them why they should give it to you.
And that has zero to do with the culling thing. Which was all I was saying. You keep coming back to this made up argument that I said I didn't want civilian hunters. I said no such thing. I said I don't want them as our means for doing culls or population management. I never said they can't hunt for sport or food.
Though I will say it saddens me as an american there are people who are poor enough in my country that they have to hunt for food, like I pay taxes, I thought paying taxes meant people in america don't go hungry and aren't forced to go Oregon trail to feed themselves.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's not what I'm talking about.
There's two comments there.
One was "sometimes people have accidents with guns, we should make laws so they don't and minimize people owning guns" -- which is stupid, and nannystateish
The second was "we should have wardens cull herds"
Which is wasteful.
Like I said, I don't really give a fuck if jim-bob shoots off his dick because he's careless with his gun, those are pointless laws and that's going to be a source of contention about regulation flat out. If your laws are so onerous that they don't let reasonable people do things because you're scared, you can just get lost.
So, purposes that are equally possible with bolt action rifles and shotguns. The only difference is that the lower rate of fire (Yes, yes, when not operated by a Marine trained sharpshooter) decreases their utility as a weapon of mass murder.
And yes, a lower rate of fire does make it more difficult to kill large numbers of running people. That is why the world's militaries largely moved away from bolt action rifles except in very specific circumstances.
I find this attitude strange, but it's gotta just be a cultural thing.
Hunting for food isn't a bad thing or something that should be saddening. There's nothing upsetting to me about the idea that we need to give less assistance to people because they have the ability and opportunity to fend for themselves.
You're not out right saying it, but you're making it really clear you don't give a fuck if it goes away.
It may not be direct but it's certainly "meh I don't care, let's just make laws and if it reduces the gun population to 1% that's fine" which is essentially banning them.
People in America choose that lifestyle because they enjoy it. They like living in the wilderness and hunting. Regardless of what you do or believe, there are people that love to go camping, fishing, hunting, or live in the mountains and see their neighbors once a year and never step foot in an office or downtown.
Reading back through i can see the thin line between those two points.
In other words, i see what you were saying. Its a thin seperation, but one that you did -indeed- make.
Not letting it get into the hands of someone who intends to kill people in the first place decreases their utility as a weapon of mass murder by 100%. I'd much rather focus on the cause of and how to stop spree killers than say "well, at least they only had a bolt action rifle."
We do it for everything else, the only thing preventing that for guns is the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't applicable to knives, they are to cars as a dangerous item - and both require licenses to have. Or should. The difference is with vehicles they can be used for anything besides cold blooded murder.
I said we should encourage hunting in the same way we encourage all sorts of activities because we are actually doing a piss poor job of that considering the overpopulation issue
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
We're talking about hunting accidents now, not gangbangers shooting up the hood.
So that needs to be taken in context.
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's hard to even read your arguments because it's so full of vitriol I don't know what point you're trying to make.
I don't see the point of hiring game wardens, you do, we do a fine enough job right now, we can do slightly better. I'm sure there's poachers in the US, but that's kind of random, and not even really a big deal. Edit: we can hire game wardens to handle the management, but there's no reason we can't have some sort of program to let hunters take part. But you seem to keep waffling back and forth between only game wardens should be in charge, to "I'm not saying people can't hunt, but I don't think they should."
Like I said about your second half, some people CHOOSE those things because they enjoy it. You could pay 100% of your income in taxes to help feed people and someone would throw the money back in your face and go live in the mountains and hunt because it's enjoyable to them. You can't legislate that, why would you even want to? You don't like it? Great. I don't like Catholics. What rights do I have over them?
You left out the latter part of that quote, "Well, at least they only had a bolt action rifle. Otherwise, more people could have been killed."
People choose to get drunk too, we still regular that and punish them severely when they fuck up.
That's nice but that doesn't mean their lifestyle is immune from government regulation. They're using dangerous weapons, that comes with enormous responsibility and it'd be unwise for the government to look the other way when accidents happen or they misuse their weapons to harm people. Also, that lifestyle isn't for every gun owner.
How many people, would you say, are you ok with being killed in a mass shooting then?
The automatic transmission has distinct advantages and disadvantages to a stick shift. Same as a semi-automatic vs a bolt-action. A bolt-action rifle will fire a single round just as fast as a semi, but if you're looking to fire multiple rounds in a short period of time (which is dependent on the person's 'people I hate' list) then the semi automatic is the go to choice.
Are the advantages that a semi-automatic weapon has for hunting, pest control, target shooting, etc. more important than the disadvantages that a bolt-action would impose on a mass shooting situation?
So what, exactly, kind of law would you make that we don't already have in regards to someone accidentally discharging their weapon and hurting themselves?
Fewer rather than more.
So let's suppose a certain regulation A. Because we live in a huge country, any regulation will necessarily have very real impacts on human lives, and lots of life and death situations occurring at the fringes. With 300M people, even something like regulating ice cream ingredients could result in people losing their lives, directly or indirectly. Agreed?
Further, I assume that your general support for certain kinds of regulation means you accept that regulations can save lives. Also agreed?
Let's say Regulation A pertains to a certain kind of handgun. Let's suppose that passing the regulation makes it harder for Granny Arthritis to obtain a handgun, and so she winds up using a bolt action rifle, which she is unable to properly wield. As a result, she is killed by badgers. This regulation costs her, and a small number of other people, their lives. Let us call this number X.
Meanwhile, a number of other people who would have acquired a handgun and committed murders with them are unable to do so, resulting in a number of lives being saved. Let's call this number Y.
As well, a bunch of people who like to go target shooting with this handgun are unable to do so. There is no human cost here, but several people are inconvenienced, or otherwise made to "suffer" in a non life or death manner. Call this number Z.
Given X, Y and Z, how do you determine whether or not you support this regulation? Is there a situation in which Y far outpaces X that would still make you oppose the regulation? Do you consider Y particularly relevant, or is it more about X and Z?
Gang bangers aren't the only gun owners who kill people with their weapons. Anyone who has a gun or can access a gun is liable to use it for murder if they are in the right circumstances and no-one will see it coming before it's to late. School shootings and cinema attacks aren't made by gang bangers.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
If you're talking about aimed fire, both semi-auto and bolt action rifles would be firing at about the same rate, since the re-set and re-targeting after each shot with the semi-auto wouldn't be much shorter than cycling the bolt on a bolt action. Unaimed fire, a semi-auto would be firing more since there's no lag cycling the bolt, but unaimed bolt action fire wouldn't exactly be slow either.
Yes we already talked about how we could fix that and most of us agreed on it a few pages back and then there was talks about how those laws could conceivably be racist.
Then most of us agreed that hunting and certain type of ownership is okay.
And then there was a tangent that hunting is risky so we should minimize it in case someone hurts themselves and leave it to "professionals" because of poachers and someone accidentally hurting themselves or others while hunting.
Now, a good thing would be to require everyone to wear bright colored vests while hunting. But it seems most of what has been posted so far was "rubble rubble rubble guns hurt people rubble rubble rubble", so it's a bit hard to talk about this.
A little off-topic, but the North Carolina-Virginia-New Jersey-New York firearm smuggling corridor is quite literally based on gang bangers from New York driving down to rural NC/VA gun stores and filling up their trunks with guns. The "rural gun lifestyle" and major urban crime are connected by the simple fact that the laxer gun laws in hunting-friendly areas also cater to professional gun traffickers.
You can't disconnect the parts of the country when you legislate.