Bucky Balls, too dangerous to be sold for our entertainment. Guns, A-okay!
Bucky Balls don't have a national party that supports their ownership, nor a constitutional amendment vastly out of date that is used to trump any legislation.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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?
Very wrong. Most of the time local PDS don't even bother to trace guns that came from out of state because they have to navigate dozens of registries across different states. Everyone having their own little walled garden would make sense if guns stayed where they were bought. But they don't they walk across state lines illegally all the time. States and local PDs simply don't have the resources to go on wild goose chases for a gun's origin. and even if they do what's the NYPD going to do to a straw buyer in Florida?
I don't think the feds would even need to really run a database. Just a system that standardizes state registries and allows them to talk to each other would do a work. Local law enforcement would have some background info and the feds could easily pinpoint illegal sales and go after the people.
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.
That factors aside from gun control laws can have an effect in both violent crime and homicide.
Which you've proven you realize...when convenient.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
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.
Yeah, sorry. I kind of overreacted and was snide, and I really apologize about that.
I agree with you about the NRA and such being a huge problem. Really the whole political situation is fucked. We're in a weird state where our 'common sense' laws passed don't do anything, and we flip out at the possibility that laws that actually do anything might get passed, so both.. 'sides', I guess, have legitimate grievances against the other, among other things.
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.
That factors aside from gun control laws can have an effect in both violent crime and homicide.
Which you've proven you realize...when convenient.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than "countries with rights to bear arms have significantly higher homicide rates than countries that have strict gun control"
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.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
+1
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
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.
They would be reduced as shootings, and their lethality might be reduced similarly.
But the point is generally this: whoever decides to do this will plan for maximum effect. As some people have noted, they can do so with knives and cars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
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?
Our standard isn't "what's the harm", it's "does the government have some compelling justification to infringe on the Constitutional rights of the citizen". I don't think a national gun registry meets that standard, even if it was never Used For Evil. So to me it's irrelevant that the infringement seems harmless. The suggestion that a national registry would make things convenient for the feds isn't compelling to me in the least when weighed against a Constitutional right.
If there were no States and no other entity registering firearms, the 'battle lines' would be drawn differently. I might even be convinced by an argument for eliminating all State registry in favor of a national one, but adding a new registry to the existing regime is redundant and efficiency doesn't rise to the level of a Constitutionally justifiable infringement.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
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.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
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.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
Yes, I am the goose for pointing out countries with strict gun control have lower homicide rates.
And you're making the VERY SERIOUS argument that because the US is so much larger than those countries, obviously any sort of regulation would never work here. That is very serious of you.
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.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
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?
How would we NOT be safer by banning guns?
I wouldnt be able to shoot someone/thing running at me with a knife? Can police have guns in your scenario of "ban"? If I dont have a gun I sure hope they shoot the asshole.
I dont get how this is hard to understand. I am not stating we are safer with guns, I am arguing that removing guns does not make us safer. Its at most a false sense of security. Don't tell me you feel like you dont have to worry about being shot when guns are banned. If we can agree the man in this case was mentaly ill, we can agree that his posession of a gun was illegal. We both know a ban will not keep guns off the streets with this nations history of prohibition.
"Easiest" is subjective. Poisoning is alot easier, people cant duck or return fire on what they dont see coming. And I have already stated that I am not arguing for easier access to guns. I feel like you keep repeating these points over and over when I have handled them already.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
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.
They would be reduced as shootings, and their lethality might be reduced similarly.
But the point is generally this: whoever decides to do this will plan for maximum effect. As some people have noted, they can do so with knives and cars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
Reducing the lethality was my rationale for the ten round restriction.
I find ten round mag restrictions kind of annoying. Like speed limits. That's pretty much my exact attitude on them, really.
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?
Very wrong. Most of the time local PDS don't even bother to trace guns that came from out of state because they have to navigate dozens of registries across different states. Everyone having their own little walled garden would make sense if guns stayed where they were bought. But they don't they walk across state lines illegally all the time. States and local PDs simply don't have the resources to go on wild goose chases for a gun's origin. and even if they do what's the NYPD going to do to a straw buyer in Florida?
I don't think the feds would even need to really run a database. Just a system that standardizes state registries and allows them to talk to each other would do a work. Local law enforcement would have some background info and the feds could easily pinpoint illegal sales and go after the people.
I'd be slightly more comfortable with a standardized system for info sharing than with a straight-up 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?
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?
Our standard isn't "what's the harm", it's "does the government have some compelling justification to infringe on the Constitutional rights of the citizen". I don't think a national gun registry meets that standard, even if it was never Used For Evil. So to me it's irrelevant that the infringement seems harmless. The suggestion that a national registry would make things convenient for the feds isn't compelling to me in the least when weighed against a Constitutional right.
If there were no States and no other entity registering firearms, the 'battle lines' would be drawn differently. I might even be convinced by an argument for eliminating all State registry in favor of a national one, but adding a new registry to the existing regime is redundant and efficiency doesn't rise to the level of a Constitutionally justifiable infringement.
I'm favoring an elimination of state registries (or, as Nexus suggests, a complete standardization of all 50), and the compelling reason has already gone around a few times - the enormous difficulty in tracing guns that escape legal sale and are subsequently used for crime. A better database solution would allow law enforcement an invaluable tool for stopping the illegal flow of guns and investigating the violence they cause while, as far as I've been convinced so far, doing no observable harm to anyone's constitutional rights. So I suppose the next question is, looking to the content of my posts and Nexus's posts, why do you feel the "compelling" standard still has not been met?
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.
That factors aside from gun control laws can have an effect in both violent crime and homicide.
Which you've proven you realize...when convenient.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than "countries with rights to bear arms have significantly higher homicide rates than countries that have strict gun control"
which....thanks for proving my point
Mexico has a right to bear arms?
Also, gun laws are the only difference between us and Japan or the UK that could influence homicide rate?
Sure. Gotcha. You betcha. Allow me to engage in an honest debate with you, that ought to be fruitful.
Bucky Balls, too dangerous to be sold for our entertainment. Guns, A-okay!
Bucky Balls don't have a national party that supports their ownership, nor a constitutional amendment vastly out of date that is used to trump any legislation.
I believe it was Jamie Madison who wrote "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to have an AR15 with the 100 round drum mag shall not be infringed"
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Bucky Balls, too dangerous to be sold for our entertainment. Guns, A-okay!
Bucky Balls don't have a national party that supports their ownership, nor a constitutional amendment vastly out of date that is used to trump any legislation.
I believe it was Jamie Madison who wrote "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to have an AR15 with the 100 round drum mag shall not be infringed"
We also can't forget these were the same genius's who put in the 3/5's compromise devaluing black people as citizens. But man that 2nd amendment written when you would be lucky to get two shots off in a minute from the same rifle totally would apply to a belt fed LMG, just a tool man.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Just noticed that syphonblue was the goosiest of geese ever to goose a goose that tried to straw man me previously (or is illiterate). My bad. Should have known not to even respond. The avatars are small on my phone, so I didn't notice.
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.
That factors aside from gun control laws can have an effect in both violent crime and homicide.
Which you've proven you realize...when convenient.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than "countries with rights to bear arms have significantly higher homicide rates than countries that have strict gun control"
which....thanks for proving my point
Mexico has a right to bear arms?
Also, gun laws are the only difference between us and Japan or the UK that could influence homicide rate?
Sure. Gotcha. You betcha. Allow me to engage in an honest debate with you, that ought to be fruitful.
That was sarcasm, btw.
Yes, Mexicans are allowed to keep arms. It is in their constitution. Look it up. Now, are they allowed to take them outside the home? No. But yes, they are allowed to own guns.
Obviously gun laws are not the only difference between the US and UK/Japan. But it sure is a lot harder to do mass stabbings than mass shootings. You don't hear about many knife-wielding maniacs rampaging through shopping malls.
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.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
Yes, I am the goose for pointing out countries with strict gun control have lower homicide rates.
And you're making the VERY SERIOUS argument that because the US is so much larger than those countries, obviously any sort of regulation would never work here. That is very serious of you.
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
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.
Bucky Balls, too dangerous to be sold for our entertainment. Guns, A-okay!
Bucky Balls don't have a national party that supports their ownership, nor a constitutional amendment vastly out of date that is used to trump any legislation.
I believe it was Jamie Madison who wrote "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to have an AR15 with the 100 round drum mag shall not be infringed"
I've posted this many, many times. But I shall do so again, because it's useful to smack down this part of the argument as early as possible.
It's a bit old now, having been written before Heller and the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right the States cannot infringe. C.2. is the relevant section, and begins:
Discussion of the right to keep and bear arms seems to lead inevitably to questions of whether the existence of such a right necessitates the right to own, for instance, a howitzer or a nuclear weapon. Writers adhering to the Standard Model, which stresses fidelity to the purposes and history of the Second Amendment, have arrived at fairly convincing answers to such questions by drawing on those sources.[78]
The right to keep and bear arms is no more absolute than, say, the right to free speech. Just as the demand "your money or your life" is not protected by the First Amendment, so the right to arms is not without limits. But the right to arms is no more undone by this fact than freedom of speech is undone by the fact that that right is not absolute either.
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 don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
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.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
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.
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Edit: I mean, drivers licenses and passports are documentation from the government. Just like a hypothetical gun license. This is what happens when the SAT does away with analogies, I guess.
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
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.
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Why did you bold "licensing"? You just said it should be free. Why would being required to be licensed stop anyone when it's free?
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 don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
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.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
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.
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Why did you bold "licensing"? You just said it should be free. Why would being required to be licensed stop anyone when it's free?
1) A lot of the background check stuff(ignoring gray market) runs into all kinds of doctor patient confidentiality crap. The standard for being allowed to break that is really high. So a guy who was just fired and is feeling depressed and angry at his boss, wouldn't be enough to allow his psychologist to alert the ATF to flag the background check system.
2) The 10 round mag thing was never really that effective. As right up until the end of the AWB, you could still buy pre-ban manufacture 15/20/30/40 round mags from just about any shooting supply catalog.
3) Random spree shootings while they pull a ton of press coverage, make up an incredibly small share of the US's gun-homicides. Targeting legislative efforts towards them is a poor use of any political capital they create.
Is a pretty good read, and really captures the futility of the situation. Here's the section of it that really nailed the whole screwed up thing for me.
Universities, more than most other institutions, are nearly unified in their prohibition of licensed concealed-carry weapons. Some even post notices stating that their campuses are gun-free zones. At the same time, universities also acknowledge that they are unable to protect their students from lethal assault. How do they do this? By recommending measures that students and faculty members can take if confronted by an “active shooter,” as in the massacre at Virginia Tech.
These recommendations make for depressing reading, and not only because they reflect a world in which random killing in tranquil settings is a genuine, if rare, possibility. They are also depressing because they reflect a denial of reality.
Here are some of the recommendations:
Wichita State University counsels students in the following manner: “If the person(s) is causing death or serious physical injury to others and you are unable to run or hide you may choose to be compliant, play dead, or fight for your life.”
The University of Miami guidelines suggest that when all else fails, students should act “as aggressively as possible” against a shooter. The guidelines, taken from a Department of Homeland Security directive, also recommend “throwing items and improvising weapons,” as well as “yelling.”
Otterbein University, in Ohio, tells students to “breathe to manage your fear” and informs them, “You may have to take the offensive if the shooter(s) enter your area. Gather weapons (pens, pencils, books, chairs, etc.) and mentally prepare your attack.”
West Virginia University advises students that if the situation is dire, they should “act with physical aggression and throw items at the active shooter.” These items could include “student desks, keys, shoes, belts, books, cell phones, iPods, book bags, laptops, pens, pencils, etc.”
The University of Colorado at Boulder’s guidelines state, “You and classmates or friends may find yourselves in a situation where the shooter will accost you. If such an event occurs, quickly develop a plan to attack the shooter … Consider a plan to tackle the shooter, take away his weapon, and hold him until police arrive.”
It is, of course, possible to distract a heavily armed psychotic on a suicide mission by throwing an iPod at him, or a pencil. But it is more likely that the psychotic would respond by shooting the pencil thrower.
The existence of these policies suggests that universities know they cannot protect their students during an armed attack. (At Virginia Tech, the gunman killed 30 students and faculty members in the 10 minutes it took the police to arrive and penetrate the building he had blockaded.) And yet, these schools will not allow adults with state-issued concealed-carry permits to bring their weapons onto campus, as they would be able to almost anywhere else. “Possession or storage of a deadly weapon, destructive device, or fireworks in any form … is prohibited,” West Virginia University’s policy states.
....
However, the University of Colorado’s own active-shooter recommendations state:
Active harming incidents have occurred at a number of locations in recent years, and the University of Colorado is not immune to this potential. While the odds of this occurring at CU are small, the consequences are so potentially catastrophic it makes sense for all students, staff, faculty and visitors to CU to consider the possibility of such an incident occurring here.
'You should be ready to defend yourself from a gun wielding madman' and 'You have no need of a gun to defend yourself'. And what makes it nuts is that both of those positions are arguably true.
Actually, syphonblue, is English your native language? That might be the issue here. No biggie either way, I'm just trying to get at the root of the problem.
Or you could just admit you were being a goose back there, it's not that hard.
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
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.
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Why did you bold "licensing"? You just said it should be free. Why would being required to be licensed stop anyone when it's free?
See my edit. And stop being a goose.
Edit: I mean, drivers licenses and passports are documentation from the government. Just like a hypothetical gun license. This is what happens when the SAT does away with analogies, I guess.
But it's....still free. So you're still giving away free gun licenses. You still haven't changed the argument at all.
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.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
Yeah and why do we ban drunk driving when people drive drunk all the time?
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?
Our standard isn't "what's the harm", it's "does the government have some compelling justification to infringe on the Constitutional rights of the citizen". I don't think a national gun registry meets that standard, even if it was never Used For Evil. So to me it's irrelevant that the infringement seems harmless. The suggestion that a national registry would make things convenient for the feds isn't compelling to me in the least when weighed against a Constitutional right.
If there were no States and no other entity registering firearms, the 'battle lines' would be drawn differently. I might even be convinced by an argument for eliminating all State registry in favor of a national one, but adding a new registry to the existing regime is redundant and efficiency doesn't rise to the level of a Constitutionally justifiable infringement.
I'm favoring an elimination of state registries (or, as Nexus suggests, a complete standardization of all 50), and the compelling reason has already gone around a few times - the enormous difficulty in tracing guns that escape legal sale and are subsequently used for crime. A better database solution would allow law enforcement an invaluable tool for stopping the illegal flow of guns and investigating the violence they cause while, as far as I've been convinced so far, doing no observable harm to anyone's constitutional rights. So I suppose the next question is, looking to the content of my posts and Nexus's posts, why do you feel the "compelling" standard still has not been met?
A national registry of People Who Pled the 5th would also probably end up being pretty useful in stopping illegal activity, but that isn't a good enough reason to do so. "It'd be easier for the cops" is rarely ever good enough as a reason to infringe on a Constitutional right. Certainly an additional registry on top of the current regime would be an infringement, just as a national registry of people who applied for a permit to protest something, or a requirement that all persons crossing State lines possess a national ID card, would be infringements of the 1st Amendment.
The cops will just have to work a little harder I guess.
spool32 on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
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.
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Why did you bold "licensing"? You just said it should be free. Why would being required to be licensed stop anyone when it's free?
See my edit. And stop being a goose.
Edit: I mean, drivers licenses and passports are documentation from the government. Just like a hypothetical gun license. This is what happens when the SAT does away with analogies, I guess.
But it's....still free. So you're still giving away free gun licenses. You still haven't changed the argument at all.
I have never met any government license or card you can get for free outside of a voter registration card, a library card, and a social security card.
Driver licenses, passports, hunting permits, fishing permits, home building, etc etc etc e-fucking-tc all cost money.
1) A lot of the background check stuff(ignoring gray market) runs into all kinds of doctor patient confidentiality crap. The standard for being allowed to break that is really high. So a guy who was just fired and is feeling depressed and angry at his boss, wouldn't be enough to allow his psychologist to alert the ATF to flag the background check system.
2) The 10 round mag thing was never really that effective. As right up until the end of the AWB, you could still buy pre-ban manufacture 15/20/30/40 round mags from just about any shooting supply catalog.
3) Random spree shootings while they pull a ton of press coverage, make up an incredibly small share of the US's gun-homicides. Targeting legislative efforts towards them is a poor use of any political capital they create.
Well, in California, the ten round magazine thing is actually "you cannot purchase or transfer it, you can at best own one if you owned it before the restriction."
With regards to 3) yeah, that's true. The way to reduce America's gun violence is to reduce its gang violence, which is horrific.
TIL "strawmanning" someone means using their words exactly as they said them
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.
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Why did you bold "licensing"? You just said it should be free. Why would being required to be licensed stop anyone when it's free?
See my edit. And stop being a goose.
Edit: I mean, drivers licenses and passports are documentation from the government. Just like a hypothetical gun license. This is what happens when the SAT does away with analogies, I guess.
But it's....still free. So you're still giving away free gun licenses. You still haven't changed the argument at all.
I have never met any government license or card you can get for free outside of a voter registration card, a library card, and a social security card.
Driver licenses, passports, hunting permits, fishing permits, home building, etc etc etc e-fucking-tc all cost money.
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 don't buy the argument that they're completely unrelated though, the UK shares a lot of the problems the US does far as violent crime and punitive sentencing goes - yet has a much lower homicide (especially youth homicide) and suicide rate, and this sort of mass-violence is almost unheard of.
America has a violence problem, which is sustained, enabled and encouraged by widespread gun ownership and a lot of the culture that goes with it.
Oh hey, I can throw around statistics and make stuff up too.
310 million guns in the US, 31,224 gun deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 9,928 guns, one person is killed.
254 million cars in the US, 32,367 vehicle deaths (intentional and accidental) in the US. This means for every 7,847 cars, one person is killed.
Time to ban cars, they're more dangerous than guns are.
Cars have another, more useful function, than killing people. Guns (particularly handguns and assault rifles) have no other function than to kill.
Did you read my post? As I said people can and will still kill each other even if we had zero guns. The point is they would not have access to something that kills with the push of a button. There is a giant difference between shooting someone and stabbing them, this again is one of the tired lame arguments that makes zero sense. This is akin to idiots that bring up the number of people killed by cars and say "should we ban cars?!".
What he said ^
Saying guns only destroy is like saying hammers only are used to puncture things or rip things out of things and knives to cut apart. "Push of a button" "swing/throw" "stab/throw", there might be a psychological difference with the disconnect of pulling a trigger, but someone commiting a random acts of violence isnt going to be concerned with the knife being in their hand going into another person.
Those who are so convinced we need to ban guns, keep in line with the thread. How would a ban/illegality of guns have prevented this man from killing two people yesterday.
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
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.
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
So again all the countries that do have gun bans, well you say they just can't be compared with the US. And when I ask why it would not work here the answer is because we have to many other problems, and it's an idiotic proposal that you cant take the time to debunk because it's so easy to debunk......
My rebuttal will use the same logic foundation then: A gun ban in the USA would work because hey look a pony.
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.
Free gun licenses (and I'm clearly referring to monetary cost) do not equal free guns, syphonblue.
Posts
Bucky Balls don't have a national party that supports their ownership, nor a constitutional amendment vastly out of date that is used to trump any legislation.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Very wrong. Most of the time local PDS don't even bother to trace guns that came from out of state because they have to navigate dozens of registries across different states. Everyone having their own little walled garden would make sense if guns stayed where they were bought. But they don't they walk across state lines illegally all the time. States and local PDs simply don't have the resources to go on wild goose chases for a gun's origin. and even if they do what's the NYPD going to do to a straw buyer in Florida?
I don't think the feds would even need to really run a database. Just a system that standardizes state registries and allows them to talk to each other would do a work. Local law enforcement would have some background info and the feds could easily pinpoint illegal sales and go after the people.
That factors aside from gun control laws can have an effect in both violent crime and homicide.
Which you've proven you realize...when convenient.
Yeah, sorry. I kind of overreacted and was snide, and I really apologize about that.
I agree with you about the NRA and such being a huge problem. Really the whole political situation is fucked. We're in a weird state where our 'common sense' laws passed don't do anything, and we flip out at the possibility that laws that actually do anything might get passed, so both.. 'sides', I guess, have legitimate grievances against the other, among other things.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than "countries with rights to bear arms have significantly higher homicide rates than countries that have strict gun control"
which....thanks for proving my point
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Could you dial down the goose so we could perhaps have a substantive discussion?
Threads like this prove time and again that this country isn't capable of having a real conversation about guns and gun control because on both sides we have people clinging to their facts and statistics that aren't really applicable.
The United Kingdom never had a relationship with firearms like the United States does and Japan only has no guns because we took them away from them after the war.
Not to mention that both countries are smaller, incredibly less diverse, and make very poor comparisons to the United States on this kind of thing.
But go ahead, don't let that get in the way of the piousness.
But the point is generally this: whoever decides to do this will plan for maximum effect. As some people have noted, they can do so with knives and cars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
Our standard isn't "what's the harm", it's "does the government have some compelling justification to infringe on the Constitutional rights of the citizen". I don't think a national gun registry meets that standard, even if it was never Used For Evil. So to me it's irrelevant that the infringement seems harmless. The suggestion that a national registry would make things convenient for the feds isn't compelling to me in the least when weighed against a Constitutional right.
If there were no States and no other entity registering firearms, the 'battle lines' would be drawn differently. I might even be convinced by an argument for eliminating all State registry in favor of a national one, but adding a new registry to the existing regime is redundant and efficiency doesn't rise to the level of a Constitutionally justifiable infringement.
They are also islands. Pretty relevant.
The US border is... enormous.
And you're making the VERY SERIOUS argument that because the US is so much larger than those countries, obviously any sort of regulation would never work here. That is very serious of you.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Indeed.
And this isn't to say that we don't need to have a serious conversation about firearms, we do. Our current relationship with them is insane, but BAN ALL THE GUNS! isn't going do it.
I dont get how this is hard to understand. I am not stating we are safer with guns, I am arguing that removing guns does not make us safer. Its at most a false sense of security. Don't tell me you feel like you dont have to worry about being shot when guns are banned. If we can agree the man in this case was mentaly ill, we can agree that his posession of a gun was illegal. We both know a ban will not keep guns off the streets with this nations history of prohibition.
"Easiest" is subjective. Poisoning is alot easier, people cant duck or return fire on what they dont see coming. And I have already stated that I am not arguing for easier access to guns. I feel like you keep repeating these points over and over when I have handled them already.
Reducing the lethality was my rationale for the ten round restriction.
I find ten round mag restrictions kind of annoying. Like speed limits. That's pretty much my exact attitude on them, really.
I'd be slightly more comfortable with a standardized system for info sharing than with a straight-up National Registry.
I'm favoring an elimination of state registries (or, as Nexus suggests, a complete standardization of all 50), and the compelling reason has already gone around a few times - the enormous difficulty in tracing guns that escape legal sale and are subsequently used for crime. A better database solution would allow law enforcement an invaluable tool for stopping the illegal flow of guns and investigating the violence they cause while, as far as I've been convinced so far, doing no observable harm to anyone's constitutional rights. So I suppose the next question is, looking to the content of my posts and Nexus's posts, why do you feel the "compelling" standard still has not been met?
Mexico has a right to bear arms?
Also, gun laws are the only difference between us and Japan or the UK that could influence homicide rate?
Sure. Gotcha. You betcha. Allow me to engage in an honest debate with you, that ought to be fruitful.
That was sarcasm, btw.
I believe it was Jamie Madison who wrote "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to have an AR15 with the 100 round drum mag shall not be infringed"
but they're listening to every word I say
We also can't forget these were the same genius's who put in the 3/5's compromise devaluing black people as citizens. But man that 2nd amendment written when you would be lucky to get two shots off in a minute from the same rifle totally would apply to a belt fed LMG, just a tool man.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, Mexicans are allowed to keep arms. It is in their constitution. Look it up. Now, are they allowed to take them outside the home? No. But yes, they are allowed to own guns.
Obviously gun laws are not the only difference between the US and UK/Japan. But it sure is a lot harder to do mass stabbings than mass shootings. You don't hear about many knife-wielding maniacs rampaging through shopping malls.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
No, no I'm not.
But thank you for proving my point. :^:
Sorry, my bad. I won't do that again.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I've posted this many, many times. But I shall do so again, because it's useful to smack down this part of the argument as early as possible.
It's a bit old now, having been written before Heller and the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right the States cannot infringe. C.2. is the relevant section, and begins:
Um he wouldn't have had a gun to shoot people with.
Why not? Serious question, why would banning guns in the USA not reduce gun violence?
No worries. You're still on timeout though. And I still can't see where you ever got "free guns for all" from that.
Edit: I mean, drivers licenses and passports are documentation from the government. Just like a hypothetical gun license. This is what happens when the SAT does away with analogies, I guess.
Why did you bold "licensing"? You just said it should be free. Why would being required to be licensed stop anyone when it's free?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Because most gun owners are law abiding citizens who aren't going to start shooting the place up? And the people likely to do so would not follow a ban anyway? And because all it does is address a symptom of a much larger problem with violence, poverty, and mental healthcare instead of addressing those problems?
It is an idiotic proposal, not worth the time it takes to debunk it. Do we need better gun law? You're damn right we do. But this is as effective as soda taxes and making welfare recipients take drug tests.
See my edit. And stop being a goose.
1) A lot of the background check stuff(ignoring gray market) runs into all kinds of doctor patient confidentiality crap. The standard for being allowed to break that is really high. So a guy who was just fired and is feeling depressed and angry at his boss, wouldn't be enough to allow his psychologist to alert the ATF to flag the background check system.
2) The 10 round mag thing was never really that effective. As right up until the end of the AWB, you could still buy pre-ban manufacture 15/20/30/40 round mags from just about any shooting supply catalog.
3) Random spree shootings while they pull a ton of press coverage, make up an incredibly small share of the US's gun-homicides. Targeting legislative efforts towards them is a poor use of any political capital they create.
this Atlantic article(written a couple weeks ago) http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/
Is a pretty good read, and really captures the futility of the situation. Here's the section of it that really nailed the whole screwed up thing for me.
'You should be ready to defend yourself from a gun wielding madman' and 'You have no need of a gun to defend yourself'. And what makes it nuts is that both of those positions are arguably true.
Or you could just admit you were being a goose back there, it's not that hard.
But it's....still free. So you're still giving away free gun licenses. You still haven't changed the argument at all.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Edit: people fail it too. True story.
Yeah and why do we ban drunk driving when people drive drunk all the time?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
A national registry of People Who Pled the 5th would also probably end up being pretty useful in stopping illegal activity, but that isn't a good enough reason to do so. "It'd be easier for the cops" is rarely ever good enough as a reason to infringe on a Constitutional right. Certainly an additional registry on top of the current regime would be an infringement, just as a national registry of people who applied for a permit to protest something, or a requirement that all persons crossing State lines possess a national ID card, would be infringements of the 1st Amendment.
The cops will just have to work a little harder I guess.
I have never met any government license or card you can get for free outside of a voter registration card, a library card, and a social security card.
Driver licenses, passports, hunting permits, fishing permits, home building, etc etc etc e-fucking-tc all cost money.
Ah...so, we have to have a test for the license? What kind of test?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Well, in California, the ten round magazine thing is actually "you cannot purchase or transfer it, you can at best own one if you owned it before the restriction."
With regards to 3) yeah, that's true. The way to reduce America's gun violence is to reduce its gang violence, which is horrific.
I bolded the relevant part
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
So again all the countries that do have gun bans, well you say they just can't be compared with the US. And when I ask why it would not work here the answer is because we have to many other problems, and it's an idiotic proposal that you cant take the time to debunk because it's so easy to debunk......
My rebuttal will use the same logic foundation then: A gun ban in the USA would work because hey look a pony.
Free gun licenses (and I'm clearly referring to monetary cost) do not equal free guns, syphonblue.
I said the former. You claimed I said the latter.
Now stop being a fucking goose. If you can.