So you think between 30-40% of the population should undergo a mental evaluation that could cost them the right to vote in order to exercise a constitutional right?
Yes. They are seeking to own something that has the power to casually kill people. We need to make sure they are stable. Plain and simple.
If we find them mentally deficient what should we do about that?
Not give them a license? Suggest they make use of mental health services? I mean, that last part is harder because we have a massive problem in giving people affordable healthcare here. If this were fucking civilized nation there would be an affordable route for them to take care of their shit.
If i wish to own a gun should my wife and kids need to be screened? If I pass but she fails what happens?
She should only need to take the test if she too wants a license. There are no perfect fixes or magic bullets, but again, much like cars, you can have a car on your property and only one of you is a license holder. It does not remove personal responsibility... but if your wife takes your gun and goes on a rampage, you may very well be liable.
What exactly in this mental screening of 100 million people would disqualify someone from gun ownership?
I am guessing the kind of stuff we are going to learn about the recent shooter in Aurora. Or the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords. Or the guy who tried to shoot Reagan and instead killed Brady. These were nut jobs. You will note that I believe most everyone will et through this process just fine, but it WILL catch the people who have no fucking right to own a gun.
Also let us not forget the costs involved. Do you feel that it is appropriate for only rich people to be able to enjoy constitutional rights? Would this program not completely disenfranchise minorities?
A license process like the one I described will be cheaper than most guns. That includes the mental health exam.
Gun owners already spend a shitload of money on range time, ammo, cleaning supplies and weapons. Asking them to incur an additional expense to ensure a better class of gun owner and the general safety of the population isn't the same as only letting the rich own guns and you know it. Argue in good confidence plzkthx.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It should be remembered that the all holy right to bear arms only meant white land owning males (citizens) when it was written.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Bah, this whole argument is kind of pointless.
Gun control is settled law in the US.
The far right has shitted up the infosphere about guns and government involvement in the market far too bad for any reasonable discussion.
The best thing to do is fix education and work on economic disparity.
No, saying that increased regulation means that we'll suddenly live in an America where only rich people will own guns is sensationalist nonsense. Pure hyperbole of the goosiest kind.
You mean kinda like what happened after 1984 with machine guns where increased regulation lead to only rich people having them.
Hell i am still wanting to know what an assault AR-15 is.
Firstly, what were these specific laws?
Secondly, how does restricted access to machine guns harm society as a whole or even infringe on your freedoms specifically?
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
A visit with a mental health professional without insurance is usually 250-300 bucks. If this is a standard procedure and can be rolled into a government service, that could EASILY be halved.
Odd that you know that offhand, explains a bit.
Seriously?
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The far right has shitted up the infosphere about guns and government involvement in the market far too bad for any reasonable discussion.
The best thing to do is fix education and work on economic disparity.
But rich people are usually better educated and don't suffer from economic hardship so clearly the answer is to make sure the wealthy are the only ones who can have guns.
It should be remembered that the all holy right to bear arms only meant white land owning males (citizens) when it was written.
I was trying really hard to avoid the gun-control discussion, but if this is the way you want to go, I'd point out that most gun-control laws in Southern states stemmed from an effort to prevent free Blacks from becoming armed.
I'm still interested in hearing about Florida's gun registration and Assault AR15s.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So you think between 30-40% of the population should undergo a mental evaluation that could cost them the right to vote in order to exercise a constitutional right?
Yes. They are seeking to own something that has the power to casually kill people. We need to make sure they are stable. Plain and simple.
If we find them mentally deficient what should we do about that?
Not give them a license? Suggest they make use of mental health services? I mean, that last part is harder because we have a massive problem in giving people affordable healthcare here. If this were fucking civilized nation there would be an affordable route for them to take care of their shit.
If i wish to own a gun should my wife and kids need to be screened? If I pass but she fails what happens?
She should only need to take the test if she too wants a license. There are no perfect fixes or magic bullets, but again, much like cars, you can have a car on your property and only one of you is a license holder. It does not remove personal responsibility... but if your wife takes your gun and goes on a rampage, you may very well be liable.
What exactly in this mental screening of 100 million people would disqualify someone from gun ownership?
I am guessing the kind of stuff we are going to learn about the recent shooter in Aurora. Or the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords. Or the guy who tried to shoot Reagan and instead killed Brady. These were nut jobs. You will note that I believe most everyone will et through this process just fine, but it WILL catch the people who have no fucking right to own a gun.
Also let us not forget the costs involved. Do you feel that it is appropriate for only rich people to be able to enjoy constitutional rights? Would this program not completely disenfranchise minorities?
A license process like the one I described will be cheaper than most guns. That includes the mental health exam.
Gun owners already spend a shitload of money on range time, ammo, cleaning supplies and weapons. Asking them to incur an additional expense to ensure a better class of gun owner and the general safety of the population isn't the same as only letting the rich own guns and you know it. Argue in good confidence plzkthx.
Screening for history of mental illness as well as phone interviews for personal references is already a part of Canada's licensing program. It also requires a training course on gun safety. It costs about $200 - $300 by the time you're done, depending on who you use for training. It doesn't prevent anyone who can afford to buy a rifle (The cheapest center fires are not much below $1K these days) from getting a license.
0
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
Why do we have cars that go faster that 65 miles per hour? We do not ban things because people do not see a reason for them.
Snark aside because ultimately we as a country feel that gun ownership is an important part of our history. You can take the militia act of 1794 where very American male between the ages of 18-40 was legally required by law to own a firearm. Now? Self defense, guns do prevent a large number of crimes every year. How about familiarizing our soldiers? Not everyone grows up in a house with a firearm, but if your parents taught you the basics of an ar-15 you are going to have a leg up on other soldiers. This could also help you based on what you are wanting to do during qualification. Ar-15 rifles are excellent for hunting small game or varmints. People can and do hunt with them.They are more accurate at longer ranges than a pistol or a shotgun, and allow a much easier follow up shot if you miss. 3 gun competitions are becoming more popular. We even have a new forum member who posted about them earlier in this thread.
Heck being an assault weapon is based more on cosmetic features than anything else. Unless you are worried about someone bayoneting you the term is really designed to confuse people.
Can you show us how many crimes guns prevent each year?
And "guns make good soldier material from our kids" is really the most ridiculous thing.
Yes. They are seeking to own something that has the power to casually kill people. We need to make sure they are stable. Plain and simple.
That can be done with any number of random blunt/sharp objects.
Not give them a license? Suggest they make use of mental health services? I mean, that last part is harder because we have a massive problem in giving people affordable healthcare here. If this were fucking civilized nation there would be an affordable route for them to take care of their shit.
So we find out they are dangerously crazy... and send them home. Does this not strike you as something that could be easily open to abuse?
She should only need to take the test if she too wants a license. There are no perfect fixes or magic bullets, but again, much like cars, you can have a car on your property and only one of you is a license holder. It does not remove personal responsibility... but if your wife takes your gun and goes on a rampage, you may very well be liable.
Except how has that solved any problem is was designed to solve? If I am on a trip, a burglar breaks in, and my wife uses my gun to defend herself and my children what will she be charged with?
I am guessing the kind of stuff we are going to learn about the recent shooter in Aurora. Or the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords. Or the guy who tried to shoot Reagan and instead killed Brady. These were nut jobs. You will note that I believe most everyone will et through this process just fine, but it WILL catch the people who have no fucking right to own a gun.
It would be needlessly expensive, and catch what? Two confirmed people? If those guys were not able to either able to fool the mental health tester, or just doctor shop through it.
A license process like the one I described will be cheaper than most guns. That includes the mental health exam.
Gun owners already spend a shitload of money on range time, ammo, cleaning supplies and weapons. Asking them to incur an additional expense to ensure a better class of gun owner and the general safety of the population isn't the same as only letting the rich own guns and you know it. Argue in good confidence plzkthx.
It is not an issue that can be arguing in good confidence as it is blatantly unconstitutional. A person can get a cheap pistol for personal protection for <100 bucks. You just quadrupled that cost. It would get ripped apart in the courts. Not to mention you have not even established the criteria on what would disqualify you.
Moreover if we are going to have a test to see if you are likely to go on a murderous rampage that 30-40% of the population has to take to enjoy their constitutional rights why do we not just mandate that EVERYONE gets tested?
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but everyone I knew growing up except for my friends from in town grew up with lots of guns in the home.
We were also taught good gun safety and such so it turned out okay.
Intrinsically a gun is no more dangerous than a car. The problem is that the government is more able to control people learning car safety because there's no Right To Own A Car in the Constitution.
I dunno, I disagree with that. Using a car is far less dangerous than using a gun. A gun fires a projectile that can ricochet, break through barriers, shatter into fragments, or just blow up on use. Using a gun means you plan to destroy whatever you have it pointed at. A car is a form of transportation that can certainly be dangerous, but not at the range or with the same level destructive power. To do serious damage with a car, you also risk yourself since you have to be in it while ramming people/other cars. A gun doesn't endanger the user.
I'd be pretty ok with some heavier gun control laws. I get target shooting and hunting, sure. And I get that people with concealed carry licenses are typically very responsible with their weapons, but I don't see why anyone feels the need to be armed at the mall. I mean, I have never heard of a story where someone tried to go on a shooting spree but was quickly stopped by civilians who happened to be carrying. Have I just not heard that story?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It should be remembered that the all holy right to bear arms only meant white land owning males (citizens) when it was written.
I was trying really hard to avoid the gun-control discussion, but if this is the way you want to go, I'd point out that most gun-control laws in Southern states stemmed from an effort to prevent free Blacks from becoming armed.
I'm still interested in hearing about Florida's gun registration and Assault AR15s.
I was just saying pretending that there's some sacred right handed down by god for any idiot to go out and buy a nuclear bomb is the height of goosery.
It cannot be beyond the wit of man to protect our citizens and protect our rights at the same time. The gun lobby does itself and the nation a disservice by pretending that it is.
A gun and a car are not equivalent when used as weapons. Gun it and try to hit me with your car and I've got a great chance to escape alive. That is sadly not the case when someone pulls a gun on me. That's because cars are made for transportation, and guns are made for killing.
Could we do with a reasonable amount of gun control in this country? Absolutely, but it won't stop psychos like this guy running around killing people. The fact is that there are just TOO MANY guns in America right now. Even if you outlawed them, Pandora's Box is wide open at this point. I doubt it would even affect gun crime within the next 2 decades.
The thing is, with this tragedy, we realize that anyone of us could be a victim and there is nothing we can do about it. People want to do something. Something to lessen the chance of this happening to them and their loved ones. But sadly there is nothing.
A visit with a mental health professional without insurance is usually 250-300 bucks. If this is a standard procedure and can be rolled into a government service, that could EASILY be halved.
Odd that you know that offhand, explains a bit.
Seriously?
Hey man, can't have crazy people like you deciding on something important like gun rights. That would be weird.
Moreover if we are going to have a test to see if you are likely to go on a murderous rampage that 30-40% of the population has to take to enjoy their constitutional rights why do we not just mandate that EVERYONE gets tested?
well, considering I think one's mental health is every bit as important as one's physical health, I would be perfectly copacetic with everyone getting mental health screenings every so often and physicals and whatnot as part of a government run healthcare.
I actually think its a good idea.
But REQUIRING a mental health check? Only when you are seeking higher responsibility, like owning a deadly weapon or applying for a security clearance.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The far right has shitted up the infosphere about guns and government involvement in the market far too bad for any reasonable discussion.
The best thing to do is fix education and work on economic disparity.
Abortion used to be settled law, too, now there are restrictions all over the place. Torture used to be settled law until the Twin Towers fell.
That shit only means something right up until the day we get a new Supreme Court justice. If enough people decide that they are scared of guns and agitate and vote accordingly, that law will get unsettled quick.
That's the one thing I agree with the gun nuts about. We're one bad day from society finally saying "fuck it" and turning sharply against guns. We've already got politicians like Bloomberg positioning themselves accordingly.
Phillishere on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The far right has shitted up the infosphere about guns and government involvement in the market far too bad for any reasonable discussion.
The best thing to do is fix education and work on economic disparity.
Abortion used to be settled law, too, now there are restrictions all over the place. Torture used to be settled law until the Twin Towers fell.
That shit only means something right up until the day we get a new Supreme Court justice. If enough people decide that they are scared of guns and agitate and vote accordingly, that shit will get unsettled quick.
That's the one thing I agree with the gun nuts about. We're one bad day from society finally saying "fuck it" and turning sharply against guns. We've already got politicians like Bloomberg positioning themselves accordingly.
Yeah, and keeping everyone scared is the best bet.
By that logic we're one day away from invading Poland.
It cannot be beyond the wit of man to protect our citizens and protect our rights at the same time. The gun lobby does itself and the nation a disservice by pretending that it is.
AManFromEarth on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
That can be done with any number of random blunt/sharp objects.
It would be much, much, much, much harder to kill 12 and injure 58 people in a theater with a random blunt/sharp object.
Much harder.
To be fair, gun laws meant to prevent massacres are pretty much a non-starter. Canada's gun laws are in direct response to the Ecole Polytechnique shooting that was two or three decades ago (Can't remember exactly off the top of my head). I can't imagine how any of the laws that have been introduced since would prevent another massacre like that one.
But those kinds of events galvanize the anti-gun lobby and gun culture is not nearly as present in Canadian culture as American, so the laws went through. Not that I really mind because I think Canada, now that the long gun registry has been abolished, are pretty good. But gun laws aren't that great at preventing violent crime.
0
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
A visit with a mental health professional without insurance is usually 250-300 bucks. If this is a standard procedure and can be rolled into a government service, that could EASILY be halved.
You would only need to pay this every 4-6 years.
If gun violence and deaths from gunfire are as small as you claim, the liability payments will be rather small.
This isn't as issue of having to be rich to own a gun, this is an issue of making guns as regulated and tracked a commodity as cars, and protecting the victims and families of victims who incur massive expense when they get shot, and the shooter being some poor fuckup who can't afford to pay for tens to hundreds of thousands of medical expenses and funeral costs and whatnot.
Odd that you know that offhand, explains a bit. Anyway regardless of cost 250-300 bucks is nothing to sneeze at. Heck i could get a couple guns for that. Why exactly would the premiums be small in a for profit industry? Really though the question is how exactly will any of this solve anything? Well its a pipe dream anyway, the entire ideal is unconstitutional. Not to mention uselessly expensive.
If we diverted all that time, money, and energy into social programs to combat poverty we would see a much greater return on our investment in terms of gun violence.
Do you want to imply that he is mentally imbalanced because he knows the current rate for a health professional? What a classy way to have a discussion!
So you think between 30-40% of the population should undergo a mental evaluation that could cost them the right to vote in order to exercise a constitutional right? If we find them mentally deficient what should we do about that? If i wish to own a gun should my wife and kids need to be screened? If I pass but she fails what happens? What exactly in this mental screening of 100 million people would disqualify someone from gun ownership? Also let us not forget the costs involved. Do you feel that it is appropriate for only rich people to be able to enjoy constitutional rights? Would this program not completely disenfranchise minorities?
Are you afraid? Noone is talking about revoking voting rights, but if it turns out some people are so instable that they are a danger to temselves and/or others then yes, that could and probably should happen.
You grasp for examples that are ever more extreme, I don't think anyone asks for your 2nd cousin twice removed to get a screening so you can own yer gun, but the ownder should be tested and then forced to lock it up properly.
That can be done with any number of random blunt/sharp objects.
It would be much, much, much, much harder to kill 12 and injure 58 people in a theater with a random blunt/sharp object.
Much harder.
To be fair, gun laws meant to prevent massacres are pretty much a non-starter. Canada's gun laws are in direct response to the Ecole Polytechnique shooting that was two or three decades ago (Can't remember exactly off the top of my head). I can't imagine how any of the laws that have been introduced since would prevent another massacre like that one.
But those kinds of events galvanize the anti-gun lobby and gun culture is not nearly as present in Canadian culture as American, so the laws went through. Not that I really mind because I think Canada, now that the long gun registry has been abolished, are pretty good. But gun laws aren't that great at preventing violent crime.
Right, but it's also unfair to equate owning a rifle with a 100 round magazine with owning a pair of scissors.
A gun and a car are not equivalent when used as weapons. Gun it and try to hit me with your car and I've got a great chance to escape alive. That is sadly not the case when someone pulls a gun on me. That's because cars are made for transportation, and guns are made for killing.
Could we do with a reasonable amount of gun control in this country? Absolutely, but it won't stop psychos like this guy running around killing people. The fact is that there are just TOO MANY guns in America right now. Even if you outlawed them, Pandora's Box is wide open at this point. I doubt it would even affect gun crime within the next 2 decades.
The thing is, with this tragedy, we realize that anyone of us could be a victim and there is nothing we can do about it. People want to do something. Something to lessen the chance of this happening to them and their loved ones. But sadly there is nothing.
That is a terrible attitude to have. Wouldn't affect anything in two decades doesn't mean it's not worth doing. If we could initiate foolproof utopia in two decades but chose not to do so because that'd take too long, we'd be idiots. Change takes time and work.
It should be remembered that the all holy right to bear arms only meant white land owning males (citizens) when it was written.
I was trying really hard to avoid the gun-control discussion, but if this is the way you want to go, I'd point out that most gun-control laws in Southern states stemmed from an effort to prevent free Blacks from becoming armed.
I'm still interested in hearing about Florida's gun registration and Assault AR15s.
I was just saying pretending that there's some sacred right handed down by god for any idiot to go out and buy a nuclear bomb is the height of goosery.
It cannot be beyond the wit of man to protect our citizens and protect our rights at the same time. The gun lobby does itself and the nation a disservice by pretending that it is.
I don't think this is what 'the gun lobby' thinks, at all. They/we (to the extent that as a vocal gun owner, that's me) just disagree on how to protect the citizens and rights, and where the balance should be struck.
For an example, to protect the citizenry, I'm an advocate of policies to expand mental health services, reform healthcare in general, and try to address the root causes of crime (poverty, drugs, etc). To protect Rights, I'm against policies that impact my ability to buy AR-15s with adjustable lengths of pull, modern-sized magazines, and mountains of ammunution.
'The Gun Lobby' has a lot of pretty ridiculous people, but they get strawmaned an awful lot.
That can be done with any number of random blunt/sharp objects.
It would be much, much, much, much harder to kill 12 and injure 58 people in a theater with a random blunt/sharp object.
Much harder.
To be fair, gun laws meant to prevent massacres are pretty much a non-starter. Canada's gun laws are in direct response to the Ecole Polytechnique shooting that was two or three decades ago (Can't remember exactly off the top of my head). I can't imagine how any of the laws that have been introduced since would prevent another massacre like that one.
But those kinds of events galvanize the anti-gun lobby and gun culture is not nearly as present in Canadian culture as American, so the laws went through. Not that I really mind because I think Canada, now that the long gun registry has been abolished, are pretty good. But gun laws aren't that great at preventing violent crime.
Right, but it's also unfair to equate owning a rifle with a 100 round magazine with owning a pair of scissors.
Like I said, I like Canada's gun laws. We don't have scissor laws.
Can you show us how many crimes guns prevent each year?
And "guns make good soldier material from our kids" is really the most ridiculous thing.
Studies vary between 800k-2.5 million.
Also guns make good soldiers is the entire basis of the CMP due to civilians having problems adapting to the 1903 Springfield due to being used to lever action and not bolt action rifles. You know that right now there is a government program where if you jump through a couple hoops and mail them a check they will mail you a M1 Garand rifle direct to your door.
It should be remembered that the all holy right to bear arms only meant white land owning males (citizens) when it was written.
First what the hell is an assault AR-15. How does it different from any other? Second nope. Check the militia act of 1794. Every male between the ages of 18 and 40 was required by law to own a gun. It was pretty much just slaves, women, and the elderly who that did not want with guns. Odd that.
Secondly, how does restricted access to machine guns harm society as a whole or even infringe on your freedoms specifically?
The specific specific laws? Google it. Short answer you could no longer manufacture or import a fully automatic firearm made after 1984. All existing ones were registered and those are the only ones that are allowed. These days a "cheap" fully auto starts around 5 grand, and just goes up from there. That is not to mention the fees to transfer, or the paperwork involved. Heck you can get a M79 grenade launcher if you want one. Will cost a mint, and even if you can find someone to sell you the grenades would cost a 200 dollar tax stamp to transfer apiece.
How did it infringe my freedoms? Well for one unless I am rich I cannot own a fully automatic firearm, same with society as a whole. There are still legal ways to fire them, and they are a blast to shoot. Society has not been made safer by banning them and we are still having the same argument today as we were then.
After Behring Breivik's massacre last yea I feel pretty confident in saying that strict gun control will not prevent spree shootings.
Then you should research the number of incidents of gun crime in Europe and the United States. Turns out that fewer guns per capita leads to fewer people getting shot.
Yet violent crime rates continue to trend exactly as they did before, and people end up just as dead by different means.
Also yes while harder to kill 12 and injure 50 in a theater without using a gun could probably get quite a few by starting at the back and working your way foward with a good kitchen knife.
A gun and a car are not equivalent when used as weapons. Gun it and try to hit me with your car and I've got a great chance to escape alive. That is sadly not the case when someone pulls a gun on me. That's because cars are made for transportation, and guns are made for killing.
Could we do with a reasonable amount of gun control in this country? Absolutely, but it won't stop psychos like this guy running around killing people. The fact is that there are just TOO MANY guns in America right now. Even if you outlawed them, Pandora's Box is wide open at this point. I doubt it would even affect gun crime within the next 2 decades.
The thing is, with this tragedy, we realize that anyone of us could be a victim and there is nothing we can do about it. People want to do something. Something to lessen the chance of this happening to them and their loved ones. But sadly there is nothing.
That is a terrible attitude to have. Wouldn't affect anything in two decades doesn't mean it's not worth doing. If we could initiate foolproof utopia in two decades but chose not to do so because that'd take too long, we'd be idiots. Change takes time and work.
First you have to have the political will. I don't think it exists in America. I'm not even really sure that it should. Stricter gun control isn't going to stop this guy. Did you read his bio? He was a 24 year old white guy working on continuing his education in neuroscience after having completed his Bachelor's. How are we going to keep guns out of this guy's hands? A sanity test is just not realistic, and if I had to guess, I would say the guy with the neuroscience degree making bombs in his apartment is smart enough to game that system.
In reality, a perfect stranger can walk up to you and kill you in seconds and there is nothing you could ever do about it. Sometimes it happens, and it's really awful, and a tragedy. But, unless you're willing to walk around in full riot gear at all times, there really is not a thing you can possibly do about it. Harping on gun control now is a fear reaction. It's a striving to do something, anything to stop this kind of tragedy. That's just not facing reality, though.
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
After Behring Breivik's massacre last yea I feel pretty confident in saying that strict gun control will not prevent spree shootings.
Then you should research the number of incidents of gun crime in Europe and the United States. Turns out that fewer guns per capita leads to fewer people getting shot.
What about Canada? Or Sweden (Or Switzerland. I can't remember which has mandatory military service which ends up with almost everyone having a rifle). Canada has as much if not more guns per capita as the US.
This obsession with gun crime is such a red herring. Gun laws may reduce gun crime, but violent crime is unaffected. If they just switch weapons, what was the point? Taking guns away from people who aren't dangerous? I would think we should be focused on reducing violent crime, which holy shit it actually is going down, imagine that.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Can you show us how many crimes guns prevent each year?
And "guns make good soldier material from our kids" is really the most ridiculous thing.
Studies vary between 800k-2.5 million.
Also guns make good soldiers is the entire basis of the CMP due to civilians having problems adapting to the 1903 Springfield due to being used to lever action and not bolt action rifles. You know that right now there is a government program where if you jump through a couple hoops and mail them a check they will mail you a M1 Garand rifle direct to your door.
It should be remembered that the all holy right to bear arms only meant white land owning males (citizens) when it was written.
First what the hell is an assault AR-15. How does it different from any other? Second nope. Check the militia act of 1794. Every male between the ages of 18 and 40 was required by law to own a gun. It was pretty much just slaves, women, and the elderly who that did not want with guns. Odd that.
Collapsible stock, removable pistol grip, there are other distinctions.
There are a lot of versions of weapons that no one needs and only exist for military and/or police purposes. Also known as "assault".
After Behring Breivik's massacre last yea I feel pretty confident in saying that strict gun control will not prevent spree shootings.
Then you should research the number of incidents of gun crime in Europe and the United States. Turns out that fewer guns per capita leads to fewer people getting shot.
This does not appear to be true in the United States, though, with firearms already being numerous. Guns have been selling in record-setting numbers over the last two decades, and firearm-related deaths are not up. Different societies are different.
It's funny how every Western nation that restricted guns saw a massive decrease in gun crime, but the idea of doing the same in America is both a liberal fantasy and the first step towars crime dystopia. As with the health care debate, the underlying argument seems to be that Americans are somehow more dangerous/incompetent/stupid than the rest of the world.
And for the "it's too complicated" crowd, why would a gun ban work in far more rural Australia and not here.
If approximately one in two American households already have guns, how would we implement such a ban?
I am in the guns-should-be-insured-like-cars perspective, realizing that the constitutionally insured right to ownership already has some legal restrictions, I think being obligated to be licensed and insured is a reasonable price to pay for the right to bear arms.
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
After Behring Breivik's massacre last yea I feel pretty confident in saying that strict gun control will not prevent spree shootings.
Then you should research the number of incidents of gun crime in Europe and the United States. Turns out that fewer guns per capita leads to fewer people getting shot.
I don't see how that relates to what I said. Maybe I used spree shooting wrong.
Less guns in general leading to fewer deaths by shooting seems reasonable though.
Fuck off and die.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
One thing I don't understand:
How does not permitting 100 round magazines make anyone any safer?
0
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
One thing I don't understand:
How can anyone think it is absolutely neccessary to own a gun?
Unless you live in a war zone.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The point is that a guy with a handgun, or a knife/sword/whatever would be incapable of shooting/stabbing 70 people in less than five minutes.
I don't think wide legal policy should be made based on a single event.
An old guy accidentally drove into a pedestrian area a few years ago in Calgary. Ran down 30 or 40 people. Perhaps old people should not be allowed to drive at all?
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Posts
Not give them a license? Suggest they make use of mental health services? I mean, that last part is harder because we have a massive problem in giving people affordable healthcare here. If this were fucking civilized nation there would be an affordable route for them to take care of their shit.
She should only need to take the test if she too wants a license. There are no perfect fixes or magic bullets, but again, much like cars, you can have a car on your property and only one of you is a license holder. It does not remove personal responsibility... but if your wife takes your gun and goes on a rampage, you may very well be liable.
I am guessing the kind of stuff we are going to learn about the recent shooter in Aurora. Or the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords. Or the guy who tried to shoot Reagan and instead killed Brady. These were nut jobs. You will note that I believe most everyone will et through this process just fine, but it WILL catch the people who have no fucking right to own a gun.
A license process like the one I described will be cheaper than most guns. That includes the mental health exam.
Gun owners already spend a shitload of money on range time, ammo, cleaning supplies and weapons. Asking them to incur an additional expense to ensure a better class of gun owner and the general safety of the population isn't the same as only letting the rich own guns and you know it. Argue in good confidence plzkthx.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Gun control is settled law in the US.
The far right has shitted up the infosphere about guns and government involvement in the market far too bad for any reasonable discussion.
The best thing to do is fix education and work on economic disparity.
Firstly, what were these specific laws?
Secondly, how does restricted access to machine guns harm society as a whole or even infringe on your freedoms specifically?
Seriously?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
But rich people are usually better educated and don't suffer from economic hardship so clearly the answer is to make sure the wealthy are the only ones who can have guns.
I was trying really hard to avoid the gun-control discussion, but if this is the way you want to go, I'd point out that most gun-control laws in Southern states stemmed from an effort to prevent free Blacks from becoming armed.
I'm still interested in hearing about Florida's gun registration and Assault AR15s.
Screening for history of mental illness as well as phone interviews for personal references is already a part of Canada's licensing program. It also requires a training course on gun safety. It costs about $200 - $300 by the time you're done, depending on who you use for training. It doesn't prevent anyone who can afford to buy a rifle (The cheapest center fires are not much below $1K these days) from getting a license.
Can you show us how many crimes guns prevent each year?
And "guns make good soldier material from our kids" is really the most ridiculous thing.
So we find out they are dangerously crazy... and send them home. Does this not strike you as something that could be easily open to abuse?
Except how has that solved any problem is was designed to solve? If I am on a trip, a burglar breaks in, and my wife uses my gun to defend herself and my children what will she be charged with?
It would be needlessly expensive, and catch what? Two confirmed people? If those guys were not able to either able to fool the mental health tester, or just doctor shop through it.
It is not an issue that can be arguing in good confidence as it is blatantly unconstitutional. A person can get a cheap pistol for personal protection for <100 bucks. You just quadrupled that cost. It would get ripped apart in the courts. Not to mention you have not even established the criteria on what would disqualify you.
Moreover if we are going to have a test to see if you are likely to go on a murderous rampage that 30-40% of the population has to take to enjoy their constitutional rights why do we not just mandate that EVERYONE gets tested?
I'd be pretty ok with some heavier gun control laws. I get target shooting and hunting, sure. And I get that people with concealed carry licenses are typically very responsible with their weapons, but I don't see why anyone feels the need to be armed at the mall. I mean, I have never heard of a story where someone tried to go on a shooting spree but was quickly stopped by civilians who happened to be carrying. Have I just not heard that story?
I was just saying pretending that there's some sacred right handed down by god for any idiot to go out and buy a nuclear bomb is the height of goosery.
It cannot be beyond the wit of man to protect our citizens and protect our rights at the same time. The gun lobby does itself and the nation a disservice by pretending that it is.
Could we do with a reasonable amount of gun control in this country? Absolutely, but it won't stop psychos like this guy running around killing people. The fact is that there are just TOO MANY guns in America right now. Even if you outlawed them, Pandora's Box is wide open at this point. I doubt it would even affect gun crime within the next 2 decades.
The thing is, with this tragedy, we realize that anyone of us could be a victim and there is nothing we can do about it. People want to do something. Something to lessen the chance of this happening to them and their loved ones. But sadly there is nothing.
Hey man, can't have crazy people like you deciding on something important like gun rights. That would be weird.
It would be much, much, much, much harder to kill 12 and injure 58 people in a theater with a random blunt/sharp object.
Much harder.
I actually think its a good idea.
But REQUIRING a mental health check? Only when you are seeking higher responsibility, like owning a deadly weapon or applying for a security clearance.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Abortion used to be settled law, too, now there are restrictions all over the place. Torture used to be settled law until the Twin Towers fell.
That shit only means something right up until the day we get a new Supreme Court justice. If enough people decide that they are scared of guns and agitate and vote accordingly, that law will get unsettled quick.
That's the one thing I agree with the gun nuts about. We're one bad day from society finally saying "fuck it" and turning sharply against guns. We've already got politicians like Bloomberg positioning themselves accordingly.
Yeah, and keeping everyone scared is the best bet.
By that logic we're one day away from invading Poland.
To be fair, gun laws meant to prevent massacres are pretty much a non-starter. Canada's gun laws are in direct response to the Ecole Polytechnique shooting that was two or three decades ago (Can't remember exactly off the top of my head). I can't imagine how any of the laws that have been introduced since would prevent another massacre like that one.
But those kinds of events galvanize the anti-gun lobby and gun culture is not nearly as present in Canadian culture as American, so the laws went through. Not that I really mind because I think Canada, now that the long gun registry has been abolished, are pretty good. But gun laws aren't that great at preventing violent crime.
Do you want to imply that he is mentally imbalanced because he knows the current rate for a health professional? What a classy way to have a discussion!
EDIT:
Are you afraid? Noone is talking about revoking voting rights, but if it turns out some people are so instable that they are a danger to temselves and/or others then yes, that could and probably should happen.
You grasp for examples that are ever more extreme, I don't think anyone asks for your 2nd cousin twice removed to get a screening so you can own yer gun, but the ownder should be tested and then forced to lock it up properly.
Right, but it's also unfair to equate owning a rifle with a 100 round magazine with owning a pair of scissors.
That is a terrible attitude to have. Wouldn't affect anything in two decades doesn't mean it's not worth doing. If we could initiate foolproof utopia in two decades but chose not to do so because that'd take too long, we'd be idiots. Change takes time and work.
I don't think this is what 'the gun lobby' thinks, at all. They/we (to the extent that as a vocal gun owner, that's me) just disagree on how to protect the citizens and rights, and where the balance should be struck.
For an example, to protect the citizenry, I'm an advocate of policies to expand mental health services, reform healthcare in general, and try to address the root causes of crime (poverty, drugs, etc). To protect Rights, I'm against policies that impact my ability to buy AR-15s with adjustable lengths of pull, modern-sized magazines, and mountains of ammunution.
'The Gun Lobby' has a lot of pretty ridiculous people, but they get strawmaned an awful lot.
The guy had a fuckload of explosives in his apartment, and those are already illegal.
Like I said, I like Canada's gun laws. We don't have scissor laws.
So we agree?
Studies vary between 800k-2.5 million.
Also guns make good soldiers is the entire basis of the CMP due to civilians having problems adapting to the 1903 Springfield due to being used to lever action and not bolt action rifles. You know that right now there is a government program where if you jump through a couple hoops and mail them a check they will mail you a M1 Garand rifle direct to your door.
First what the hell is an assault AR-15. How does it different from any other? Second nope. Check the militia act of 1794. Every male between the ages of 18 and 40 was required by law to own a gun. It was pretty much just slaves, women, and the elderly who that did not want with guns. Odd that.
The specific specific laws? Google it. Short answer you could no longer manufacture or import a fully automatic firearm made after 1984. All existing ones were registered and those are the only ones that are allowed. These days a "cheap" fully auto starts around 5 grand, and just goes up from there. That is not to mention the fees to transfer, or the paperwork involved. Heck you can get a M79 grenade launcher if you want one. Will cost a mint, and even if you can find someone to sell you the grenades would cost a 200 dollar tax stamp to transfer apiece.
How did it infringe my freedoms? Well for one unless I am rich I cannot own a fully automatic firearm, same with society as a whole. There are still legal ways to fire them, and they are a blast to shoot. Society has not been made safer by banning them and we are still having the same argument today as we were then.
Then you should research the number of incidents of gun crime in Europe and the United States. Turns out that fewer guns per capita leads to fewer people getting shot.
Also yes while harder to kill 12 and injure 50 in a theater without using a gun could probably get quite a few by starting at the back and working your way foward with a good kitchen knife.
First you have to have the political will. I don't think it exists in America. I'm not even really sure that it should. Stricter gun control isn't going to stop this guy. Did you read his bio? He was a 24 year old white guy working on continuing his education in neuroscience after having completed his Bachelor's. How are we going to keep guns out of this guy's hands? A sanity test is just not realistic, and if I had to guess, I would say the guy with the neuroscience degree making bombs in his apartment is smart enough to game that system.
In reality, a perfect stranger can walk up to you and kill you in seconds and there is nothing you could ever do about it. Sometimes it happens, and it's really awful, and a tragedy. But, unless you're willing to walk around in full riot gear at all times, there really is not a thing you can possibly do about it. Harping on gun control now is a fear reaction. It's a striving to do something, anything to stop this kind of tragedy. That's just not facing reality, though.
What about Canada? Or Sweden (Or Switzerland. I can't remember which has mandatory military service which ends up with almost everyone having a rifle). Canada has as much if not more guns per capita as the US.
This obsession with gun crime is such a red herring. Gun laws may reduce gun crime, but violent crime is unaffected. If they just switch weapons, what was the point? Taking guns away from people who aren't dangerous? I would think we should be focused on reducing violent crime, which holy shit it actually is going down, imagine that.
Collapsible stock, removable pistol grip, there are other distinctions.
There are a lot of versions of weapons that no one needs and only exist for military and/or police purposes. Also known as "assault".
This does not appear to be true in the United States, though, with firearms already being numerous. Guns have been selling in record-setting numbers over the last two decades, and firearm-related deaths are not up. Different societies are different.
If approximately one in two American households already have guns, how would we implement such a ban?
I am in the guns-should-be-insured-like-cars perspective, realizing that the constitutionally insured right to ownership already has some legal restrictions, I think being obligated to be licensed and insured is a reasonable price to pay for the right to bear arms.
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
The point is that a guy with a handgun, or a knife/sword/whatever would be incapable of shooting/stabbing 70 people in less than five minutes.
Less guns in general leading to fewer deaths by shooting seems reasonable though.
How does not permitting 100 round magazines make anyone any safer?
How can anyone think it is absolutely neccessary to own a gun?
Unless you live in a war zone.
I don't think wide legal policy should be made based on a single event.
An old guy accidentally drove into a pedestrian area a few years ago in Calgary. Ran down 30 or 40 people. Perhaps old people should not be allowed to drive at all?
Reload time, mainly.
When a gunman has to stop shooting, they are a target capable of being taken down by non-lethal force (tackle them, for instance).
If someone can fire 100 rounds off before they have to stop shooting, they have a much larger window of time in which to kill without challenge.
And the first person to say that "if someone else in the theater was armed..." gets punched across the internet by me.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...