Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Nope. No problems there. I specifically have a problem with the witch-hunts. There's no reason for it. The "It's the person, not the gun" adage has a point. You can take guns out of the equation and if a person is crazy enough they'll make their own or make a bomb with manure. You need to address the person.
Adding in checks so long as they don't restrict it for most citizens is fine. If the person is a nutter, okay, that's kosher with me.
There's different types of crazy, different ways of policing and different levels of difficultly in doing all of these things. I don't think all the mass shooters or even the majority of them would resort to a bomb if a gun wasn't available - largely because if they were actually planning this out they'd probably have gone for a bomb anyway. Mentality of a mass shooter seems closer to a suicide bomber, since they typically seem to turn the gun on themselves at the end but then that is still a very different act than going out to shoot a bunch of people at random.
Given the guy shot himself afterwards, looks like taking away his gun would have stopped this. Whether this falls under gun control or mental health is a different issue though.
On the flip side, we have strict licensing requirements to operate a car and can track the sale of any vehicle by serial number, and all this without a giant uproar from the citizenry.
That said, I think that the dichotomy of "address the person; crazies can go nuts and kill people with or without tools!" versus "guns exist only to destroy!" is a false one.
A crazy person snaps and goes to the mall to wreak havoc - I would prefer that there be as many steps between him and the means to kill lots of people easily as can be reasonably accommodated by non-crazies! Waiting periods and background checks do not keep citizens from legally owning guns, but they might make someone suffering a psychotic break opt for a more readily-available but less-destructive tool? Great! That's a good middle ground from which to start developing a solution.
Licensing for cars is anything but strict though. I got my license at 16 by taking a 6 hour drivers ed course offered by my high school (an hour a day of driving after school, 3 days a week for 2 weeks) and passing a 10 question test at the DMV. It's a joke, honestly. If you start talking about doing licensing in the US the same way it's done in some European countries though, with large fees for the education parts and very strict testing, people flip out about being denied the "right" to drive.
Try putting in a 10 6 hour shooting and safety coruse requirement for owning a handgun and see if the NRA doesn't throw a shit fit.
Yeah, that's why I'm not a member of the NRA any more. They've abandoned what sanity they had left, when ensuring the person buying the gun actually knows how to use it safely is considered infringing on their rights.
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
I wouldn't support most of them for various Constitutional reasons that could be removed if addressed properly. I also don't necessarily think it's a great idea to try and have a one size fits all attempt, because it'll inevitably be far too restrictive.
If the national standard was roughly equivalent to the Texas standard (shall issue, instant background checks, low taxation, few administrative hurdles, concealed carry, very narrow restrictions on banned classes of gun) I'd be OK with that, but NYC would flip the fuck out at such a standard.
Let's focus just on the conceal carry for a moment. So what if I said this: people in Texas and people in NYC both get to carry concealed handguns, if they wish, but in order to satisfy the folks in NY, I say everyone must also pass a rigorous safety and training course first (specifically for concealed carry), and register their concealed carry weapon with the police.
I am not sure removing this mans access to guns would have stopped him from hurting less people, much less prevented him from committing an act of violence. Guns keep people from being more creative in these situations.
I dont get the arguement that somehow guns being illegal would of kept this man from hurting others. America has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
I am so tired of even having this argument. Yes if there were no guns at all people can and will still kill each other, however non-gun murders are much less frequent so yes 100% yes guns are the problem. If giving up owning a gun could save one life it is worth it as they are in no way a necessary thing in anyway shape or form, the argument for self defense from animals is not one we even need to bring up here simple because if it can be shown that people live in areas were having a gun is needed to prevent animals from killing them then I think we would be fine with those people being allowed to own a firearm.
If a person wants to kill someone and they have a gun, guess what they are going to use to kill that person with? If guns were illegal tomorrow how many people reading this really think they could and would know where to go to get a gun?
The idea that the conversation has to stop at anywhere near making guns illegal because hey people will still find a way is insane. If something is illegal less people will do/posses that thing, it really is that simple as every country in the world that has real gun control is proof of.
I grew up shooting guns, and hunting. I fully enjoy target shooting, but I would gladly give it all up to have guns illegal tomorrow in a heartbeat. I feel pity and sadness for the people that think they need a gun to be safe, I can't imagine living in such irrational fear.
The man killed 2 people and injured another before offing himself. If this was not a targeted attack and a case of random violence, would you say any tool he used in the act should be banned and was 100% the problem?
What if he used a hammer, or a common kitchen knife(legal sized blade even that is under average state regulation)? Would you ban hammers and kitchen knives because they are the problem? This man wanted to go out and cause violence, not having access to a gun would not have stopped him.
Is there a name for this arguement? I feel like you are using some sort of inverse pascal's wager.
Context, my brother.
Plus, the analogies are silly. Hammers and kitchen knives have other functions than to kill or destroy things. The only function of a gun is destruction.
Saying "destruction" is the only use of a gun is silly. Guns are an extremely efficient method of hunting, which produces a livelyhood for people(skins, meat) as well as feeding themselves and the homeless. It's a tool like any other.
Lets use a "better" analogy, crossbows,bows, and slings. In a busy mall at christmas time this man could of easily killed 2 people and himself. Are guns still the problem, or is the goalpost now at "projectile weapons"?
Edit: I dont want to go on a tangent about casualty and alternative/efficient killing methods Edd as its morbid and not for this thread, but a hammer is a simple tool anyone has access to that could of done the damage he did. They do exist, and are easier to accomplish then buying a firearm legally. Hense my sentence about the gun actually being a non creative/lazy way of accomplishing mass destruction in a random act of violence. The gun wasnt the issue here, it was the man wanting to cause wonton violence.
The comparisons are still silly. Guns are easier to get than a crossbow and besides crossbows are illegal in some states.
But as long as guns are easier and cheaper to get than help for these individuals, I will keep advocating for stronger restrictions on guns and more money pumped into social welfare programs until socialized help becomes easier to obtain than guns.
edit: and really, the gun exacerbates the issue. Imagine if hand grenades were legal or rocket launchers. Sure, maybe the root cause is the individual's mental state, but that doesn't mean we go legalizing explosive weaponry because, hey, it's just a "tool".
Can we agree your arguement is invalid when you can buy a crossbow on amazon? harder to get then guns? I can get it overnighted for 4$ extra.
You are not making any arguement below that that you couldnt replace gun with "hammer" or "knife". a gun doesnt exacerbate the issue. The issue is a man went out and commited a random act of violence, and people are shouting "DAMN THIS PARTICULAR METHOD!" If this were a triple stabbing with two dead and he then sliced his own neck, we wouldnt be having a thread and noone would care.
Yes, I already said multiple times the comparisons are silly.
Why don't you take your argument to the logical conclusion? We may as well make rocket launchers as easy to get as crossbows. After all, the weapon has no affect on the outcome!
edit: As a crazy aside, I wonder if there's an interesting overlap between people who think "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "no one else should have the atomic bomb because it could wipe us out".
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns, and guns can only be used for destruction and to kill.
Acts of violence like this one wont be prevented even if guns dissapeared into thin air tomorrow.
Edit: Oklaholma city bomber used manure, its what gave the explosion enough pack to take out the front of the federal building. We do now have regulations because of that on buying large amounts of manure, and I think there are laws against stockpiling it for periods of time.
See the fire truck for scale? he filled a uhaul truck to do this, around where the firetruck was:
DiannaoChong on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
On the flip side, we have strict licensing requirements to operate a car and can track the sale of any vehicle by serial number, and all this without a giant uproar from the citizenry.
That said, I think that the dichotomy of "address the person; crazies can go nuts and kill people with or without tools!" versus "guns exist only to destroy!" is a false one.
A crazy person snaps and goes to the mall to wreak havoc - I would prefer that there be as many steps between him and the means to kill lots of people easily as can be reasonably accommodated by non-crazies! Waiting periods and background checks do not keep citizens from legally owning guns, but they might make someone suffering a psychotic break opt for a more readily-available but less-destructive tool? Great! That's a good middle ground from which to start developing a solution.
Licensing for cars is anything but strict though. I got my license at 16 by taking a 6 hour drivers ed course offered by my high school (an hour a day of driving after school, 3 days a week for 2 weeks) and passing a 10 question test at the DMV. It's a joke, honestly. If you start talking about doing licensing in the US the same way it's done in some European countries though, with large fees for the education parts and very strict testing, people flip out about being denied the "right" to drive.
This is true. We're sort of ridiculous.
Also with regards to waiting periods: Those are kind of dumb, after the first purchase? Especially after the first purchase of each type... I mean, they make total sense for the first purchase! Don't want someone to get pissed off and go buy a gun to murder someone!
...after that though, what are you doing? I mean, it's no secret that I'm a gun owner. I didn't care that I had to wait to buy a ten-round semiautomatic rifle. Having to wait ten days, again, for a seven round bolt action one? Kiiiiinda dumb. I already have a gun that's scarier in every way. Except the color I guess.
I dunno, I'm just opposed to legislation that is pointless and affects people who are nonthreatening. I am all for federal waiting periods for purchases, I just don't think they make any sense past the first purchase.
Of course then you'd probably have to have a database for guns to enforce that, which is, good luck getting THAT done.
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
I wouldn't support most of them for various Constitutional reasons that could be removed if addressed properly. I also don't necessarily think it's a great idea to try and have a one size fits all attempt, because it'll inevitably be far too restrictive.
If the national standard was roughly equivalent to the Texas standard (shall issue, instant background checks, low taxation, few administrative hurdles, concealed carry, very narrow restrictions on banned classes of gun) I'd be OK with that, but NYC would flip the fuck out at such a standard.
Let's focus just on the conceal carry for a moment. So what if I said this: people in Texas and people in NYC both get to carry concealed handguns, if they wish, but in order to satisfy the folks in NY, I say everyone must also pass a rigorous safety and training course first, and register their concealed carry weapon with the police.
Fair compromise?
This is already the case in Texas, so it wouldn't even be a compromise.
Yes, I already said multiple times the comparisons are silly.
Why don't you take your argument to the logical conclusion? We may as well make rocket launchers as easy to get as crossbows. After all, the weapon has no affect on the outcome!
edit: As a crazy aside, I wonder if there's an interesting overlap between people who think "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "no one else should have the atomic bomb because it could wipe us out".
Price does, though.
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
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
I wouldn't support most of them for various Constitutional reasons that could be removed if addressed properly. I also don't necessarily think it's a great idea to try and have a one size fits all attempt, because it'll inevitably be far too restrictive.
If the national standard was roughly equivalent to the Texas standard (shall issue, instant background checks, low taxation, few administrative hurdles, concealed carry, very narrow restrictions on banned classes of gun) I'd be OK with that, but NYC would flip the fuck out at such a standard.
Let's focus just on the conceal carry for a moment. So what if I said this: people in Texas and people in NYC both get to carry concealed handguns, if they wish, but in order to satisfy the folks in NY, I say everyone must also pass a rigorous safety and training course first, and register their concealed carry weapon with the police.
Fair compromise?
This is already the case in Texas, so it wouldn't even be a compromise.
Ah, I snuck an edit in there a little too late. Does Texas require training specific to concealed carry?
I suppose the more important distinction there is this - do you support those measures, especially registering the piece you intend to carry, or do you feel they risk chaffing the constitution?
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
I wouldn't support most of them for various Constitutional reasons that could be removed if addressed properly. I also don't necessarily think it's a great idea to try and have a one size fits all attempt, because it'll inevitably be far too restrictive.
If the national standard was roughly equivalent to the Texas standard (shall issue, instant background checks, low taxation, few administrative hurdles, concealed carry, very narrow restrictions on banned classes of gun) I'd be OK with that, but NYC would flip the fuck out at such a standard.
Let's focus just on the conceal carry for a moment. So what if I said this: people in Texas and people in NYC both get to carry concealed handguns, if they wish, but in order to satisfy the folks in NY, I say everyone must also pass a rigorous safety and training course first, and register their concealed carry weapon with the police.
Fair compromise?
This is already the case in Texas, so it wouldn't even be a compromise.
Ah, I snuck an edit in there a little too late. Does Texas require training specific to concealed carry?
Yes, you have to complete a specific CC course before you get your licence to carry, as opposed to a general ownership licence.
Edit: AFAIK this is true in all the states where shall-issue concealed carry licencing exists.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
I don't know if you're referring to me, but I didn't say ban guns (unless I missed it somewhere). More restrictions, yes. Ban? No.
Yes, I already said multiple times the comparisons are silly.
Why don't you take your argument to the logical conclusion? We may as well make rocket launchers as easy to get as crossbows. After all, the weapon has no affect on the outcome!
edit: As a crazy aside, I wonder if there's an interesting overlap between people who think "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "no one else should have the atomic bomb because it could wipe us out".
Shivahn -- they already have a similar list for meth cooking with Sudafed, I don't see why they couldn't do it with guns. Probably could even use the same system, straight out of the box.
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
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
I wouldn't support most of them for various Constitutional reasons that could be removed if addressed properly. I also don't necessarily think it's a great idea to try and have a one size fits all attempt, because it'll inevitably be far too restrictive.
If the national standard was roughly equivalent to the Texas standard (shall issue, instant background checks, low taxation, few administrative hurdles, concealed carry, very narrow restrictions on banned classes of gun) I'd be OK with that, but NYC would flip the fuck out at such a standard.
Let's focus just on the conceal carry for a moment. So what if I said this: people in Texas and people in NYC both get to carry concealed handguns, if they wish, but in order to satisfy the folks in NY, I say everyone must also pass a rigorous safety and training course first, and register their concealed carry weapon with the police.
Fair compromise?
This is already the case in Texas, so it wouldn't even be a compromise.
Ah, I snuck an edit in there a little too late. Does Texas require training specific to concealed carry?
Yes, you have to complete a specific CC course before you get your licence to carry, as opposed to a general ownership licence.
Edit: AFAIK this is true in all the states where shall-issue concealed carry licencing exists.
But on the registration point, do you feel it fair that gun owners should register the carry piece with the police, and why would you not support this being generally true of every firearm sold?
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
Exactly what Nexus mentioned. Background tracks, a database maybe, stockpilers of ammo get put on a watch list. Things like this are okay. But someone can do it over a significant amount of time anyway. Or just get the gun illegally. I doubt gun control would do much to stop violent crime. It might stop casual crime, like, gang shootings. Or it might escalate it. I don't know I'm sure someone has relevant statistics. I imagine banning has a better positive effect than heavy handed gun control.
I get suspicious with the "just get the gun illegally" argument for at least one reason relevant to this discussion: the "black market" for guns can easily be a grey market. Without a national database to track every gun sold, it doesn't take much for someone who is legally entitled to buy a gun to hand off a gun to a friend who isn't, which can then be put to illegal use. I would expand existing databases for exactly that reason - it would be helpful to law enforcement to be able to trace more guns more of the time. Right now, the ATF is primarily concerned with machine guns and parts, which is wildly irrelevant to most gun violence.
it is absolutely a grey market The gun companies aren't selling extras out of the back of a van. virtually every gun out there was legal at some point. Reasonable tracking and registration would help figure out where those exchanges are happening. Like someone in North Carolina buys 20 guns 10 of which end up in gang related crime across the country. Guess what you just found a straw buyer.
Oh, the NRA will throw a fit at anything, because its all seen as a slippery slope. Of course, as we see in places like NYC and Chicago, this slope really can get a little slick.
As for "common sense" licensing requirements, yes it falls victim to the same problem we have with cars. The worry that in at least some cases, it will be abused or become excessively restrictive, denying otherwise capable and well balanced people ownership. And call me a gun nut, but I can absolutely see that happening in those same anti gun areas.
As with cars, any restrictions you could actually get passed with regards to licensing won't actually do dick to make a anybody safer. We can't even keep blind, senile, half dead drivers off the road...but we're going to keep guns out of the hands of anybody who is not obviously mentally retarded or shows up dressed like the Joker? Um, okay, good luck.
Of course, then there's the cost. Which, being a right and all, I'd argue should be zero to the user. But then, I say the same about driver licensing and passports. I'm an outlier here, and I realize that.
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
I wouldn't support most of them for various Constitutional reasons that could be removed if addressed properly. I also don't necessarily think it's a great idea to try and have a one size fits all attempt, because it'll inevitably be far too restrictive.
If the national standard was roughly equivalent to the Texas standard (shall issue, instant background checks, low taxation, few administrative hurdles, concealed carry, very narrow restrictions on banned classes of gun) I'd be OK with that, but NYC would flip the fuck out at such a standard.
Let's focus just on the conceal carry for a moment. So what if I said this: people in Texas and people in NYC both get to carry concealed handguns, if they wish, but in order to satisfy the folks in NY, I say everyone must also pass a rigorous safety and training course first, and register their concealed carry weapon with the police.
Fair compromise?
This is already the case in Texas, so it wouldn't even be a compromise.
Ah, I snuck an edit in there a little too late. Does Texas require training specific to concealed carry?
Yes, you have to complete a specific CC course before you get your licence to carry, as opposed to a general ownership licence.
Edit: AFAIK this is true in all the states where shall-issue concealed carry licencing exists.
But on the registration point, do you feel it fair that gun owners should register the carry piece with the police, and why would you not support this being generally true of every firearm sold?
I don't oppose State registration for all gun purchases, as long as there are appropriate controls in place to prevent abuse. I do oppose a national registry.
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
I wouldn't support most of them for various Constitutional reasons that could be removed if addressed properly. I also don't necessarily think it's a great idea to try and have a one size fits all attempt, because it'll inevitably be far too restrictive.
If the national standard was roughly equivalent to the Texas standard (shall issue, instant background checks, low taxation, few administrative hurdles, concealed carry, very narrow restrictions on banned classes of gun) I'd be OK with that, but NYC would flip the fuck out at such a standard.
Let's focus just on the conceal carry for a moment. So what if I said this: people in Texas and people in NYC both get to carry concealed handguns, if they wish, but in order to satisfy the folks in NY, I say everyone must also pass a rigorous safety and training course first, and register their concealed carry weapon with the police.
Fair compromise?
This is already the case in Texas, so it wouldn't even be a compromise.
Ah, I snuck an edit in there a little too late. Does Texas require training specific to concealed carry?
Yes, you have to complete a specific CC course before you get your licence to carry, as opposed to a general ownership licence.
Edit: AFAIK this is true in all the states where shall-issue concealed carry licencing exists.
But on the registration point, do you feel it fair that gun owners should register the carry piece with the police, and why would you not support this being generally true of every firearm sold?
I don't oppose State registration for all gun purchases, as long as there are appropriate controls in place to prevent abuse. I do oppose a national registry.
This is what I would like to hear more about - can you elaborate on why you favor that distinction?
Oh, the NRA will throw a fit at anything, because its all seen as a slippery slope. Of course, as we see in places like NYC and Chicago, this slope really can get a little slick.
As for "common sense" licensing requirements, yes it falls victim to the same problem we have with cars. The worry that in at least some cases, it will be abused or become excessively restrictive, denying otherwise capable and well balanced people ownership. And call me a gun nut, but I can absolutely see that happening in those same anti gun areas.
As with cars, any restrictions you could actually get passed with regards to licensing won't actually do dick to make a anybody safer. We can't even keep blind, senile, half dead drivers off the road...but we're going to keep guns out of the hands of anybody who is not obviously mentally retarded or shows up dressed like the Joker? Um, okay, good luck.
Of course, then there's the cost. Which, being a right and all, I'd argue should be zero to the user. But then, I say the same about driver licensing and passports. I'm an outlier here, and I realize that.
So...the solution to gun violence and the outbreak of mass shootings this year is....to give out free guns to everyone.
Right, and the only people talking about opposing basic regulations are the people arguing against that.
Don't pretend that one set of people is setting up strawmans, this is a topic where no one argues with each other.
I don't know if you noticed, but at least three people involved here have said they don't think basic regulations of guns will work.
So, I guess I'm not pretending anything.
Uh. You're pretending that
You know what, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. I think we're misunderstanding each other. I was admonishing you for pretending that only one set of people was setting up strawmans. There have been people suggesting we'd be safer with, or should, ban guns, that guns are 100% the problem, etc.
My point was that the gun lobby isn't "in its own little world of straw men" (and, the people arguing in this thread are hardly the gun lobby, any more than you're the Brady campaign). And there are people that are suggesting guns be made illegal, or illegal for most people, in this thread. Everyone's arguing with shadows of their construction.
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
Exactly what Nexus mentioned. Background tracks, a database maybe, stockpilers of ammo get put on a watch list. Things like this are okay. But someone can do it over a significant amount of time anyway. Or just get the gun illegally. I doubt gun control would do much to stop violent crime. It might stop casual crime, like, gang shootings. Or it might escalate it. I don't know I'm sure someone has relevant statistics. I imagine banning has a better positive effect than heavy handed gun control.
I get suspicious with the "just get the gun illegally" argument for at least one reason relevant to this discussion: the "black market" for guns can easily be a grey market. Without a national database to track every gun sold, it doesn't take much for someone who is legally entitled to buy a gun to hand off a gun to a friend who isn't, which can then be put to illegal use. I would expand existing databases for exactly that reason - it would be helpful to law enforcement to be able to trace more guns more of the time. Right now, the ATF is primarily concerned with machine guns and parts, which is wildly irrelevant to most gun violence.
it is absolutely a grey market The gun companies aren't selling extras out of the back of a van. virtually every gun out there was legal at some point. Reasonable tracking and registration would help figure out where those exchanges are happening. Like someone in North Carolina buys 20 guns 10 of which end up in gang related crime across the country. Guess what you just found a straw buyer.
Also if the US has 30-50% of the world's civilian owned guns, then getting rid of a large part of that market would certainly have an effect on the availability of illegal guns.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
I wouldn't support most of them for various Constitutional reasons that could be removed if addressed properly. I also don't necessarily think it's a great idea to try and have a one size fits all attempt, because it'll inevitably be far too restrictive.
If the national standard was roughly equivalent to the Texas standard (shall issue, instant background checks, low taxation, few administrative hurdles, concealed carry, very narrow restrictions on banned classes of gun) I'd be OK with that, but NYC would flip the fuck out at such a standard.
Let's focus just on the conceal carry for a moment. So what if I said this: people in Texas and people in NYC both get to carry concealed handguns, if they wish, but in order to satisfy the folks in NY, I say everyone must also pass a rigorous safety and training course first, and register their concealed carry weapon with the police.
Fair compromise?
This is already the case in Texas, so it wouldn't even be a compromise.
Ah, I snuck an edit in there a little too late. Does Texas require training specific to concealed carry?
Yes, you have to complete a specific CC course before you get your licence to carry, as opposed to a general ownership licence.
Edit: AFAIK this is true in all the states where shall-issue concealed carry licencing exists.
But on the registration point, do you feel it fair that gun owners should register the carry piece with the police, and why would you not support this being generally true of every firearm sold?
I don't oppose State registration for all gun purchases, as long as there are appropriate controls in place to prevent abuse. I do oppose a national registry.
This is what I would like to hear more about - can you elaborate on why you favor that distinction?
I don't believe the Federal government has any compelling interest in extending its power to track Constitutionally protected ownership. If the FBI needs to know about a gun, it can ask the States about that specific gun. There's no reason to track purchasers on a national level that cannot be accomplished at the State level, so why do it at all?
Oh, the NRA will throw a fit at anything, because its all seen as a slippery slope. Of course, as we see in places like NYC and Chicago, this slope really can get a little slick.
As for "common sense" licensing requirements, yes it falls victim to the same problem we have with cars. The worry that in at least some cases, it will be abused or become excessively restrictive, denying otherwise capable and well balanced people ownership. And call me a gun nut, but I can absolutely see that happening in those same anti gun areas.
As with cars, any restrictions you could actually get passed with regards to licensing won't actually do dick to make a anybody safer. We can't even keep blind, senile, half dead drivers off the road...but we're going to keep guns out of the hands of anybody who is not obviously mentally retarded or shows up dressed like the Joker? Um, okay, good luck.
Of course, then there's the cost. Which, being a right and all, I'd argue should be zero to the user. But then, I say the same about driver licensing and passports. I'm an outlier here, and I realize that.
So...the solution to gun violence and the outbreak of mass shootings this year is....to give out free guns to everyone.
Licensing costs dumbass.
Edit: I mean, I say "driver LICENSING" right there in the paragraph. Learn to read. Build your own straw men, don't try to paint me up as one.
Availability is a pretty big deal. Making all handguns illegal wouldn't actually reduce the number of handguns in existence.
Gun regulation that takes into account reality would be great, but you shouldn't be under illusions that it would significantly drop the crime rate or do FUCKING. ANYTHING. to stop spree shooters.
Short of implementing the laws Japan did you won't affect spree shooters (which would require abandoning the fourth amendment an having the ATF literally go take everyone's guns), and even then it's unlikely. Using spree shooters as a basis for gun policy is nuts. Spree shootings happen all over the world and in countries with vastly more stringent gun laws than America.
Basically if you want to talk sensible gun regulation, spree shooting shouldn't really come up. That said I am aware that exploiting a spree shooting can create enough political capital to enact gun regulations. Unfortunately the regulations everyone with any political voice keeps talking about is the AWB instead of some of the more sensible stuff Preacher has talked about.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
I don't know if you're referring to me, but I didn't say ban guns (unless I missed it somewhere). More restrictions, yes. Ban? No.
Yes, I already said multiple times the comparisons are silly.
Why don't you take your argument to the logical conclusion? We may as well make rocket launchers as easy to get as crossbows. After all, the weapon has no affect on the outcome!
edit: As a crazy aside, I wonder if there's an interesting overlap between people who think "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "no one else should have the atomic bomb because it could wipe us out".
Price does, though.
The Free Market would fix that ;-)
I never said weapon has no effect on the outcome, I said it had no effect on this outcome. Being able to fire an automatic assault rifle in a crowded theater is different then firing a xbow in a crowded theater. Lets not say we will be safer banning or restricting guns because someone fired 20 rounds into a crowd and hit 3 people. a blind person with a knife duct tapped to their chest would kill more people in a crowded mall at xmas.
I am not sure if I was speaking to you, alot of people tried to pile on me,(some) with nonsense at the same time. I am not arguing against stricter regulation necessarily. Thats why I said earlier "basic regulation/restriction" is simple to say, and wondered what that person was in favor of.
Do people really need RPGs? Besides the slipperly slope falicy, probably not. But who are we to say someone doesnt need an RPG? Interesting collection piece, can be used for a reason (even if its not efficient, if they want to clear out beaver dams with one, I'm not going to judge, there the one holding a fucking rpg). Like the arguement all along, there are more effective means of creating large explosions if you are trying to do terrorism or random acts of violence.
(to continue your aside, my opinion is consistant, who are we to deny another country the ability to form their nuclear program. I get why we deter other nations, its a gigantic fucking step, and we just dont trust them. We trusted ourselves and we used them twice.)
Much like we should make no changes to the tax code because it won't fix all our problems over night, americans can never have any new gun laws because people will still kill each other. The futility of doing anything!
This feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water, though.
I shoot recurve bows in my free time. Why should there be bow laws because some asshole attacked people with his long bow? We can apply this to guns too. I may find an m4 carbine just all sorts of fun to shoot. Or my AK47. Or my rocket launcher. As long as I'm safe why do we need to restrict it? Because some crazy nutter killed people?
We're looking at the wrong cause of the problem here. It's not the tool, it's the person.
Better social programs can address this, but why is everyone after the utility they used? You think it was the guns that made this possible? I don't feel right punishing people who follow the law because of a nutter just like I don't feel right taking away adult desk toys. Someone was irresponsible, or, someone needed help and didn't get it.
If you bought that ak47 though do you think it'd be ridiculous if you had to have a background check for it? And have the gun registered in a national database so if it was ever used for a crime it could be traced? Or maybe, just maybe, if you bought an extended magazine for it and started stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammo someone took a second look at your file to see you weren't a total nutter?
Who in this thread has opposed any regulation at all? Seriously, who?
So to put it another way then, would you (or anybody, but since you mention it) support national gun control standards equally applicable in every state, and if so, what sorts would you feel most comfortable with?
Edit: I feel it worth clarifying that this is totally not a trap, I'm just genuinely curious where the common ground is.
I wouldn't support most of them for various Constitutional reasons that could be removed if addressed properly. I also don't necessarily think it's a great idea to try and have a one size fits all attempt, because it'll inevitably be far too restrictive.
If the national standard was roughly equivalent to the Texas standard (shall issue, instant background checks, low taxation, few administrative hurdles, concealed carry, very narrow restrictions on banned classes of gun) I'd be OK with that, but NYC would flip the fuck out at such a standard.
Let's focus just on the conceal carry for a moment. So what if I said this: people in Texas and people in NYC both get to carry concealed handguns, if they wish, but in order to satisfy the folks in NY, I say everyone must also pass a rigorous safety and training course first, and register their concealed carry weapon with the police.
Fair compromise?
This is already the case in Texas, so it wouldn't even be a compromise.
Ah, I snuck an edit in there a little too late. Does Texas require training specific to concealed carry?
Yes, you have to complete a specific CC course before you get your licence to carry, as opposed to a general ownership licence.
Edit: AFAIK this is true in all the states where shall-issue concealed carry licencing exists.
But on the registration point, do you feel it fair that gun owners should register the carry piece with the police, and why would you not support this being generally true of every firearm sold?
I don't oppose State registration for all gun purchases, as long as there are appropriate controls in place to prevent abuse. I do oppose a national registry.
This is what I would like to hear more about - can you elaborate on why you favor that distinction?
I don't believe the Federal government has any compelling interest in extending its power to track Constitutionally protected ownership. If the FBI needs to know about a gun, it can ask the States about that specific gun. There's no reason to track purchasers on a national level that cannot be accomplished at the State level, so why do it at all?
This is really going to come down to a states' rights debate, because my natural response to this is one out of fear of uncooperative states that run interference with the feds any time the investigation goes federal. There's also the argument in favor of simplicity and standardization that goes with making a single, unified system.
What I'm looking for is the demonstrable harm in the government keeping such records that does not involve a nearly-apocalyptic scenario of total gun confiscation, which, let's be honest, is really pretty damned unlikely. Let's say the law creating the database says something to the effect of this: without an open criminal investigation, those files are not to be opened. This law would not actively restrict ownership, and would not automatically invite surveillance beyond the government having a copy of your receipt, more or less. So what's the harm?
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Availability is a pretty big deal. Making all handguns illegal wouldn't actually reduce the number of handguns in existence.
Gun regulation that takes into account reality would be great, but you shouldn't be under illusions that it would significantly drop the crime rate or do FUCKING. ANYTHING. to stop spree shooters.
Short of implementing the laws Japan did you won't affect spree shooters (which would require abandoning the fourth amendment an having the ATF literally go take everyone's guns), and even then it's unlikely. Using spree shooters as a basis for gun policy is nuts. Spree shootings happen all over the world and in countries with vastly more stringent gun laws than America.
Basically if you want to talk sensible gun regulation, spree shooting shouldn't really come up. That said I am aware that exploiting a spree shooting can create enough political capital to enact gun regulations. Unfortunately the regulations everyone with any political voice keeps talking about is the AWB instead of some of the more sensible stuff Preacher has talked about.
Are most spree shooters not exhibiting signs that don't allow them to have guns?
I feel like spree shootings might be one of the few things that would be reduced by greater regulation. Like, ten round mags for everyone seems more reasonable than a lot of other things.
Most gun violence in America is gang violence, incidentally, so I'm not sure how much regulation will do against that, gangs have their ways to get weapons as far as I know.
Gun laws only go one direction in this country since the AWB and thats less regulation. I understand we'll never fix all gun crime, we'll never fix all crime, but I think registering weapons sold at licensed dealers and offering concealed carry after you complete a drivers ed like course are not overly fascist and could help reduce some crime.
But we also have to work on grey market stuff like gun shows, because thats a loophole that needs to be closed.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Well, statistics maybe. You should know better than to cherry pick.
Now someone can mention Canada and Sweden and we can argue about why the ones that support us fit and the others don't.
Oh, the NRA will throw a fit at anything, because its all seen as a slippery slope. Of course, as we see in places like NYC and Chicago, this slope really can get a little slick.
As for "common sense" licensing requirements, yes it falls victim to the same problem we have with cars. The worry that in at least some cases, it will be abused or become excessively restrictive, denying otherwise capable and well balanced people ownership. And call me a gun nut, but I can absolutely see that happening in those same anti gun areas.
As with cars, any restrictions you could actually get passed with regards to licensing won't actually do dick to make a anybody safer. We can't even keep blind, senile, half dead drivers off the road...but we're going to keep guns out of the hands of anybody who is not obviously mentally retarded or shows up dressed like the Joker? Um, okay, good luck.
Of course, then there's the cost. Which, being a right and all, I'd argue should be zero to the user. But then, I say the same about driver licensing and passports. I'm an outlier here, and I realize that.
So...the solution to gun violence and the outbreak of mass shootings this year is....to give out free guns to everyone.
Licensing costs dumbass.
Edit: I mean, I say "driver LICENSING" right there in the paragraph. Learn to read. Build your own straw men, don't try to paint me up as one.
I bolded and underlined the part you apparently forgot you said.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
All the talk about registeries and gun classes are moot though, America will never again inact actual gun laws nationally, they are the white whale of democratic legislation. Hell people think of Obama as a gun grabber despite 4 years of him loosening gun laws and doing nothing about restricting them.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Its dishonest to say noones in favor of banning guns when the specific people I am replying to state this wouldnt of happened and/or we would be safer if we banned guns.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
Mexico. Correlation. Causation.
Mexico has an incredibly weak government unable to do basically anything, so I don't really see a point here.
You know what, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. I think we're misunderstanding each other. I was admonishing you for pretending that only one set of people was setting up strawmans. There have been people suggesting we'd be safer with, or should, ban guns, that guns are 100% the problem, etc.
My point was that the gun lobby isn't "in its own little world of straw men" (and, the people arguing in this thread are hardly the gun lobby, any more than you're the Brady campaign). And there are people that are suggesting guns be made illegal, or illegal for most people, in this thread. Everyone's arguing with shadows of their construction.
I'm for gun ownership by the way. I also didn't say the gun lobby was the only one, although the fact that some of the fallacies and misdirections are perpetuated by the NRA, one of the core organisations, is deeply problematic, and indicative of entrenched bigotry regarding the issue.
Posts
So, I guess I'm not pretending anything.
There's different types of crazy, different ways of policing and different levels of difficultly in doing all of these things. I don't think all the mass shooters or even the majority of them would resort to a bomb if a gun wasn't available - largely because if they were actually planning this out they'd probably have gone for a bomb anyway. Mentality of a mass shooter seems closer to a suicide bomber, since they typically seem to turn the gun on themselves at the end but then that is still a very different act than going out to shoot a bunch of people at random.
Given the guy shot himself afterwards, looks like taking away his gun would have stopped this. Whether this falls under gun control or mental health is a different issue though.
Yeah, that's why I'm not a member of the NRA any more. They've abandoned what sanity they had left, when ensuring the person buying the gun actually knows how to use it safely is considered infringing on their rights.
Let's focus just on the conceal carry for a moment. So what if I said this: people in Texas and people in NYC both get to carry concealed handguns, if they wish, but in order to satisfy the folks in NY, I say everyone must also pass a rigorous safety and training course first (specifically for concealed carry), and register their concealed carry weapon with the police.
Fair compromise?
Yes, I already said multiple times the comparisons are silly.
Why don't you take your argument to the logical conclusion? We may as well make rocket launchers as easy to get as crossbows. After all, the weapon has no affect on the outcome!
edit: As a crazy aside, I wonder if there's an interesting overlap between people who think "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "no one else should have the atomic bomb because it could wipe us out".
Acts of violence like this one wont be prevented even if guns dissapeared into thin air tomorrow.
Edit: Oklaholma city bomber used manure, its what gave the explosion enough pack to take out the front of the federal building. We do now have regulations because of that on buying large amounts of manure, and I think there are laws against stockpiling it for periods of time.
This is true. We're sort of ridiculous.
Also with regards to waiting periods: Those are kind of dumb, after the first purchase? Especially after the first purchase of each type... I mean, they make total sense for the first purchase! Don't want someone to get pissed off and go buy a gun to murder someone!
...after that though, what are you doing? I mean, it's no secret that I'm a gun owner. I didn't care that I had to wait to buy a ten-round semiautomatic rifle. Having to wait ten days, again, for a seven round bolt action one? Kiiiiinda dumb. I already have a gun that's scarier in every way. Except the color I guess.
I dunno, I'm just opposed to legislation that is pointless and affects people who are nonthreatening. I am all for federal waiting periods for purchases, I just don't think they make any sense past the first purchase.
Of course then you'd probably have to have a database for guns to enforce that, which is, good luck getting THAT done.
God damnit this is why we can't have nice things.
This is already the case in Texas, so it wouldn't even be a compromise.
Price does, though.
Ah, I snuck an edit in there a little too late. Does Texas require training specific to concealed carry?
I suppose the more important distinction there is this - do you support those measures, especially registering the piece you intend to carry, or do you feel they risk chaffing the constitution?
How hard is it for the EU to regulate a historically accepted thing among it's members?
Let's say, for example, prostitution, or, abortions.
Now, think of the US not like Germany or Spain, but more like the EU. Tangentially similar to the UK as well.
Yes, you have to complete a specific CC course before you get your licence to carry, as opposed to a general ownership licence.
Edit: AFAIK this is true in all the states where shall-issue concealed carry licencing exists.
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
Removing easy access to what is probably the easiest way of killing people won't make us safer? Is that what you're arguing?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I don't know if you're referring to me, but I didn't say ban guns (unless I missed it somewhere). More restrictions, yes. Ban? No.
The Free Market would fix that ;-)
But on the registration point, do you feel it fair that gun owners should register the carry piece with the police, and why would you not support this being generally true of every firearm sold?
it is absolutely a grey market The gun companies aren't selling extras out of the back of a van. virtually every gun out there was legal at some point. Reasonable tracking and registration would help figure out where those exchanges are happening. Like someone in North Carolina buys 20 guns 10 of which end up in gang related crime across the country. Guess what you just found a straw buyer.
As for "common sense" licensing requirements, yes it falls victim to the same problem we have with cars. The worry that in at least some cases, it will be abused or become excessively restrictive, denying otherwise capable and well balanced people ownership. And call me a gun nut, but I can absolutely see that happening in those same anti gun areas.
As with cars, any restrictions you could actually get passed with regards to licensing won't actually do dick to make a anybody safer. We can't even keep blind, senile, half dead drivers off the road...but we're going to keep guns out of the hands of anybody who is not obviously mentally retarded or shows up dressed like the Joker? Um, okay, good luck.
Of course, then there's the cost. Which, being a right and all, I'd argue should be zero to the user. But then, I say the same about driver licensing and passports. I'm an outlier here, and I realize that.
I don't oppose State registration for all gun purchases, as long as there are appropriate controls in place to prevent abuse. I do oppose a national registry.
This is what I would like to hear more about - can you elaborate on why you favor that distinction?
So...the solution to gun violence and the outbreak of mass shootings this year is....to give out free guns to everyone.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Uh. You're pretending that
You know what, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. I think we're misunderstanding each other. I was admonishing you for pretending that only one set of people was setting up strawmans. There have been people suggesting we'd be safer with, or should, ban guns, that guns are 100% the problem, etc.
My point was that the gun lobby isn't "in its own little world of straw men" (and, the people arguing in this thread are hardly the gun lobby, any more than you're the Brady campaign). And there are people that are suggesting guns be made illegal, or illegal for most people, in this thread. Everyone's arguing with shadows of their construction.
Also if the US has 30-50% of the world's civilian owned guns, then getting rid of a large part of that market would certainly have an effect on the availability of illegal guns.
It's not as easy of an argument as that. People defend themselves against bad people with guns too, that easy mode works both ways. The rate at which this happens is exaggerated, maybe, but you'd have to factor this in.
Also the fact that a ban doesn't mean they disappear. Criminals break laws, you know.
I think there's an argument to be made that it makes us safer, but you've simplified it way too much. Then there's the question of how much safer?
I don't believe the Federal government has any compelling interest in extending its power to track Constitutionally protected ownership. If the FBI needs to know about a gun, it can ask the States about that specific gun. There's no reason to track purchasers on a national level that cannot be accomplished at the State level, so why do it at all?
Licensing costs dumbass.
Edit: I mean, I say "driver LICENSING" right there in the paragraph. Learn to read. Build your own straw men, don't try to paint me up as one.
Gun regulation that takes into account reality would be great, but you shouldn't be under illusions that it would significantly drop the crime rate or do FUCKING. ANYTHING. to stop spree shooters.
Short of implementing the laws Japan did you won't affect spree shooters (which would require abandoning the fourth amendment an having the ATF literally go take everyone's guns), and even then it's unlikely. Using spree shooters as a basis for gun policy is nuts. Spree shootings happen all over the world and in countries with vastly more stringent gun laws than America.
Basically if you want to talk sensible gun regulation, spree shooting shouldn't really come up. That said I am aware that exploiting a spree shooting can create enough political capital to enact gun regulations. Unfortunately the regulations everyone with any political voice keeps talking about is the AWB instead of some of the more sensible stuff Preacher has talked about.
I never said weapon has no effect on the outcome, I said it had no effect on this outcome. Being able to fire an automatic assault rifle in a crowded theater is different then firing a xbow in a crowded theater. Lets not say we will be safer banning or restricting guns because someone fired 20 rounds into a crowd and hit 3 people. a blind person with a knife duct tapped to their chest would kill more people in a crowded mall at xmas.
I am not sure if I was speaking to you, alot of people tried to pile on me,(some) with nonsense at the same time. I am not arguing against stricter regulation necessarily. Thats why I said earlier "basic regulation/restriction" is simple to say, and wondered what that person was in favor of.
Do people really need RPGs? Besides the slipperly slope falicy, probably not. But who are we to say someone doesnt need an RPG? Interesting collection piece, can be used for a reason (even if its not efficient, if they want to clear out beaver dams with one, I'm not going to judge, there the one holding a fucking rpg). Like the arguement all along, there are more effective means of creating large explosions if you are trying to do terrorism or random acts of violence.
(to continue your aside, my opinion is consistant, who are we to deny another country the ability to form their nuclear program. I get why we deter other nations, its a gigantic fucking step, and we just dont trust them. We trusted ourselves and we used them twice.)
This is really going to come down to a states' rights debate, because my natural response to this is one out of fear of uncooperative states that run interference with the feds any time the investigation goes federal. There's also the argument in favor of simplicity and standardization that goes with making a single, unified system.
What I'm looking for is the demonstrable harm in the government keeping such records that does not involve a nearly-apocalyptic scenario of total gun confiscation, which, let's be honest, is really pretty damned unlikely. Let's say the law creating the database says something to the effect of this: without an open criminal investigation, those files are not to be opened. This law would not actively restrict ownership, and would not automatically invite surveillance beyond the government having a copy of your receipt, more or less. So what's the harm?
I don't know. Let's ask...The United Kingdom with their fairly strict ban on guns. Oh they have a murder rate of 1.2 (per 100,000), versus ours of 4.2. How about Japan, arguably the most stringent in the world? 0.3. Wow that seems a lot better, but what do I know? I failed mathematics.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Are most spree shooters not exhibiting signs that don't allow them to have guns?
I feel like spree shootings might be one of the few things that would be reduced by greater regulation. Like, ten round mags for everyone seems more reasonable than a lot of other things.
Most gun violence in America is gang violence, incidentally, so I'm not sure how much regulation will do against that, gangs have their ways to get weapons as far as I know.
But we also have to work on grey market stuff like gun shows, because thats a loophole that needs to be closed.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well, statistics maybe. You should know better than to cherry pick.
Now someone can mention Canada and Sweden and we can argue about why the ones that support us fit and the others don't.
I bolded and underlined the part you apparently forgot you said.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Mexico. Correlation. Causation.
pleasepaypreacher.net
but they're listening to every word I say
Mexico has an incredibly weak government unable to do basically anything, so I don't really see a point here.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126