I think a desire to disarm the citizenry is despicable and I do not think it is a coincedence that this authoritarian position coincides with some other frankly authoritarian ideas about other civil liberties and the implementation and enforcement of policy I have seen espoused on these same forums.
I am struggling to see what "everyone who disagrees with me is an authoritarian" brings to the thread except a persecution complex.
I think a desire to disarm the citizenry is despicable and I do not think it is a coincedence that this authoritarian position coincides with some other frankly authoritarian ideas about other civil liberties and the implementation and enforcement of policy I have seen espoused on these same forums.
I am struggling to see what "everyone who disagrees with me is an authoritarian" brings to the thread except a persecution complex.
Yes, when you grossly misrepresent my post that will probably be an issue.
I think a desire to disarm the citizenry is despicable and I do not think it is a coincedence that this authoritarian position coincides with some other frankly authoritarian ideas about other civil liberties and the implementation and enforcement of policy I have seen espoused on these same forums.
I am struggling to see what "everyone who disagrees with me is an authoritarian" brings to the thread except a persecution complex.
Yes, when you grossly misrepresent my post that will probably be an issue.
Am I though? You start with saying a desire to disarm citizenry is "despicable", and call it an "authoritarian position", then go on to say these same people espouse "frankly authoritarian ideas" on other topics. That, to me, reads like people disagreeing with you (or as you put it, wanting to disarm the citizenry) are people you consider to be authoritarians.
If there's another reading of your post I don't know what it might be, or how one would go about deciphering it.
It's like the analogy people have used multiple times in the thread: If Sally keeps taking the football away, eventually you solve the issue by not bothering to play by their rules and you just take the football entirely away from Sally.
Or you do a flying drop kick into Lucy because enough is enough and her words mean nothing
I think a desire to disarm the citizenry is despicable and I do not think it is a coincedence that this authoritarian position coincides with some other frankly authoritarian ideas about other civil liberties and the implementation and enforcement of policy I have seen espoused on these same forums.
I am struggling to see what "everyone who disagrees with me is an authoritarian" brings to the thread except a persecution complex.
Yes, when you grossly misrepresent my post that will probably be an issue.
Am I though? You start with saying a desire to disarm citizenry is "despicable", and call it an "authoritarian position", then go on to say these same people espouse "frankly authoritarian ideas" on other topics. That, to me, reads like people disagreeing with you (or as you put it, wanting to disarm the citizenry) are people you consider to be authoritarians.
If there's another reading of your post I don't know what it might be, or how one would go about deciphering it.
No, I do not consider simple disagreement "authoritarianism". I consider authoritarian policy preferences to be authoritarian.
In the context of this thread people are disagreeing with you about gun control, and you've said clearly that any attempt to "disarm the citizenry" is authoritarian, therefore in the context of this thread people disagreeing with you are "authoritarian".
I mean, I guess I could have added "about gun control" after the word "disagreeing" in my post and been more precise, but I don't think your original (fairly insulting and not particularly productive) post really deserved such even-handed and reasonable consideration.
Regardless, if you want to discuss it further take it to PMs and include another D&D mod on it. We're done discussing it in the thread.
Removing weapons like the AR-15 isn't disarming the populace.
Also as has been pointed out repeatedly, plenty of other countries have much stricter gun laws without descending in to unchecked authoritarianism.
You don’t even need a second amendment to be able to arm yourself, that’s a strawman argument.
The vast majority of countries don’t have a right to bear arms, yet many of them have ways to own weapons for a variety of reasons ranging from necessities like rural animal control/defense, to food/sports hunting, and even casual range shooting for fun.
If a false argument to say that gun control laws or even a complete repeal of the second amendment will lead to the abolishment of all guns forever. Many counties have both no basic right to weapons and heavy regulations, yet can still own them with effort.
If you are a responsible gun owner, then you’ll still be a responsible gun owner after any kind of gun reform for your farm defense or hobby. If you are not a responsible gun owner, well sorry, guns aren’t toys.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
To say that suicides committed by gun are not a compelling reason to consider gun control is genuinely the most disgusting, abhorrent thing I've seen in this thread. It's shameful.
Multiple people in this thread, myself included, have had friends commit suicide via gun in the US, and to imply that the largest form of death related to the presence of guns doesn't impact your beliefs is pretty hard to divorce from the likelihood that it's the statistic that most puts the lie to your argument
I know people in Canada who similarly tried to commit suicide, but because of the lower likelihood to have guns in the household, did so by means in which they were actually able to receive help after beginning the act
To say that the value of those lives is worth less to you than the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely despicable, frankly
How many suicides are conducted with rifles?
I think a desire to disarm the citizenry is despicable and I do not think it is a coincedence that this authoritarian position coincides with some other frankly authoritarian ideas about other civil liberties and the implementation and enforcement of policy I have seen espoused on these same forums.
It's authoritarian in as much as people refusing to feed saturated fats to someone immobilized by morbid obesity is.
Christ on a cross I fucking wish guns weren't toys but they so very much are, the gun industry is puerile and toyetic and generally fucking mortifying as you could possibly imagine
+31
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Removing weapons like the AR-15 isn't disarming the populace.
Also as has been pointed out repeatedly, plenty of other countries have much stricter gun laws without descending in to unchecked authoritarianism.
Plenty of countries have far tighter gun control than the USA while still allowing people to own semi-automatic weapons.
The Czech Republic's regulations:
Categories of guns
Under the current gun law, guns, ammunition and some accessories are divided into four categories (these should not be mistaken with categories of licenses):
A – Restricted firearms and accessories
Includes full automatic firearms, military firearms and ammunition not inspected and marked for civilian use, some types of ammunition such as armor-piercing and incendiary ammunition, night vision scopes, suppressors. The use of hollow point ammunition in pistols is also restricted, however, hollow points are legal to purchase for rifles and pistol carbines.[60]
B – Guns requiring permit
Includes semi automatic and single or multiple shot handguns, revolvers, semi automatic rifles and shotguns with magazine capacity over 3 rounds or with a detachable magazine, semi automatic "military" style rifles, rim-fire firearms under 280 mm of length and all shotguns under 600 mm of length, flare guns with caliber larger than 16mm.[61]
C – Guns requiring registration
Includes single shot or bolt action rifles longer than 280 mm, shotguns, semi-automatic rifles not included in B, air rifles with muzzle energy over 16 J and black powder repeaters.[62]
D – Guns available to adults above 18
However, to get a gun license there's more than a few hoops to jump through:
An applicant applies for a gun license at a designated local office of the National police. If the conditions of age, qualification, health clearance, criminal integrity and personal reliability are met and a fee of 700 CZK (US$ 29.94) per category is paid, the license shall be issued in thirty days.[22] The license must be renewed every ten years[16] (no need to undergo qualification exam if the application is filed at least two months before termination of the previous license; health clearance still necessary
And other than age, none of those conditions are trivial. There's serious poking and prodding happening on all those fronts. The rate of firearms related deaths here is equivalent to Canada's. (CZ 2.01, CAN 2.00)
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
To say that suicides committed by gun are not a compelling reason to consider gun control is genuinely the most disgusting, abhorrent thing I've seen in this thread. It's shameful.
Multiple people in this thread, myself included, have had friends commit suicide via gun in the US, and to imply that the largest form of death related to the presence of guns doesn't impact your beliefs is pretty hard to divorce from the likelihood that it's the statistic that most puts the lie to your argument
I know people in Canada who similarly tried to commit suicide, but because of the lower likelihood to have guns in the household, did so by means in which they were actually able to receive help after beginning the act
To say that the value of those lives is worth less to you than the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely despicable, frankly
How many suicides are conducted with rifles?
I think a desire to disarm the citizenry is despicable and I do not think it is a coincedence that this authoritarian position coincides with some other frankly authoritarian ideas about other civil liberties and the implementation and enforcement of policy I have seen espoused on these same forums.
Do you believe that the citizens of basically every other country on earth are living under authoritarian rule and are suffering because they aren't allowed to own guns like in the United States?
I went over this before with Dongs, but you seem have the same idea that the citizenry needs to be armed for "reasons". Open your eyes and look around the world. This problem only exists in the United States. It is uniquely American. There's also something else regarding guns that is also uniquely American.
It's almost like the gun enthusiasts are arguing in bad faith!
Who could have ever seen this coming
Don't put me in the same bucket as NSDFRand, please
Disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. That is constantly used around here as an instant win button so posters can feel like they've "won".
Also lol @ you for thinking they care that you are being "reasonable".
Buddy, I wouldn't be the one to argue for what is or isn't good faith here
You exude a certain cocky, tone-deaf callousness re: your position of 2A absolutism, and it is absolutely off-putting
I can simultaneously balance a history of handling firearms for hundreds of hours with also presently possessing some self-awareness and emotional intelligence. So can you. Don't be reasonable, be better
Again, disagreeing isn't arguing in bad faith. Laying out my position despite the constant brow-beating isn't arguing in bad faith "buddy".
You lost any semblance of that high ground in this conversation the second you accused every person less fond of guns than me of thinking I'm unreasonable for having handled them, and being able to explain through inside experience the how and why of what makes American firearms law and culture fucky
Do I get less agrees on average than a quick easy statement like "ban 'em all"? Probably definitely. Do I hold that against anyone for even a minute? Nah. I can live with that leaden albatross 'round my neck
But at least I'm not the one who shrugs stuff off with "nah"
That's not why they think you're unreasonable, they think you're unreasonable because you aren't also screaming into the void "ban them all".
What other response is there? I've provided my argument multiple times in multiple threads just like this and it is shrugged off with the anti-armed citizenry equivalent of "nah" or brow-beating about how I support children being murdered etc. rather than taking in good faith that my position is as written: murders are tragic, I absolutely feel for victims and their families. But just like other tragedies which are facilitated because of civil liberty, I don't think we should turn around and shit all over civil liberty because of tragedy. Just like I don't think 9/11 (or other terrorist attacks) justifies absolutely shredding the 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A (or any of the useless security theater), I don't think homicides involving firearms, no matter how tragic, justify shredding the 2A guarantee of an inherent right.
I'm not writing that in bad faith, I just don't agree with the accepted position of the thread or the forum on this topic. And they aren't the same thing.
Honestly, banning guns is the one thing that works - indisputably. Worldwide, everywhere else that doesn't have routine massacres does so by not allowing people access to excessively powerful firearms. There is no logical, coherent reason other than a fantasy to believe these weapons protect anyone from the government (just ask the people in "camps" along the border) and they lead to vastly increased suicide/homicide/accidental deaths. There is basically no accountability, anywhere, for these weapons and the logistics behind tracking them has been made impossible by the NRA. The second amendment has been argued to death, but again it's extremely clear that it's not being interpreted or used correctly by the understanding of people who couldn't even fathom the kind of weapons we have today.
It's just illogical. There is no inherent right to being able to massacre people, but that's the right the US is giving to people. The fact is simply stated in the 250+ mass shootings just this year.
The irony I see here, is that many of these arrests/reports are done so on things that the NRA opposes. EG: Asking questions why someone is stockpiling weapons and ammunition then finding that a concern.
Every actual quantitative study I've read on legislation like the Australian NFA has failed to find any statistically significant relationship between said legislation and firearm homicides. Their regressions find some significance with suicides, but frankly I don't think suicides justify eliminating civil liberty either. Suicide is tragic and I had to experience having a suicidal family member, but as previously stated I don't find it compelling.
Firearms are not unregulated and committing murder with a firearm is still a crime (unless you meant something else by "no accountability"), but being able to purchase a firearm without a three year long investigation, a HIPAA violation, and an elbow deep cavity search from the BATFE in order to purchase an airsoft toy != unregulated or free-for-all.
Firstly, Australian data is focused on studying Australia. To suggest that the Australian data has any relevance here, you'll first have to show that Australian homicides involving guns and gun ownership are in anyway comparable to American homicides involving guns and gun ownership.
Secondly, "we already have laws regulating guns" is a meaningless statement when all of this is currently occurring with existing regulation and the overwhelming majority of this country feels that the current regulations are insufficient. You're constructing a strawman by suggesting that any further regulation is going to lead to some sort of "undue burden" on your precious fucking civil rights.
Lastly, I hope you understand that "I find these losses an acceptable price" is a sentiment that most of us in this thread finds abhorrent, and if you think it's "bad faith" of us to call it such, well too fucking bad.
To be absolutely clear, I did not accuse anyone of arguing in bad faith. I was addressing the accusation that I was arguing in bad faith.
I would actually rather you be arguing in bad faith in this instance, because merely presenting this argument in bad faith would be less objectionable to me than you having a sincerely-held belief that you're fine with the number of people injured and killed by firearms in this country, because you genuinely believe that restricting your ability to purchase firearms is worse than that.
To say that suicides committed by gun are not a compelling reason to consider gun control is genuinely the most disgusting, abhorrent thing I've seen in this thread. It's shameful.
Multiple people in this thread, myself included, have had friends commit suicide via gun in the US, and to imply that the largest form of death related to the presence of guns doesn't impact your beliefs is pretty hard to divorce from the likelihood that it's the statistic that most puts the lie to your argument
I know people in Canada who similarly tried to commit suicide, but because of the lower likelihood to have guns in the household, did so by means in which they were actually able to receive help after beginning the act
To say that the value of those lives is worth less to you than the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely despicable, frankly
How many suicides are conducted with rifles?
I think a desire to disarm the citizenry is despicable and I do not think it is a coincedence that this authoritarian position coincides with some other frankly authoritarian ideas about other civil liberties and the implementation and enforcement of policy I have seen espoused on these same forums.
People who want gun control: primarily on the left
People pushing authoritarian policy: on the right
It's not really coincidental that the fascists are also the pro-gun side of the political fight in DC.
While I definitely agree that more gun regulation is needed (and that we need to enforce current gun regulation) and that a national computerized, searchable registry would be an amazing idea, I don't belive that the only reason these massacres are going on is because of the availability of guns. I think it is more how we view guns and the extreme gun culture that has grown up around them. If we could be more like Switzerland things would be a lot different and all the things gun advocates say we need would still be there. Whatever it is that they have going on that they can do this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jgYJ5V2HYy4
and not kill anybody... we really really need. Like seriously, though it's from Comedy Central and the guy in it is doing a bit, everyone else around him is serious and real. However, the way he acts is pretty much how anyone here feels when they hear guns going off or if they were around a whole group of people drinking and shooting. They even have kids there that have more respect and knowledge about how guns should be used than the average gun owning American. There is definitely a middle ground between a gun owning free for all and no guns for anyone and Switzerland seems to have found it. Following them may be a very good idea.
We have camps along our southern border and people both US citizens/legal residents and Non are being terrorized/black bagged by a faction of our federal government.
And we haven't done fuck all about gun control in decades and yet this is still going on.
When does the second amendment come to the rescue?
Are we supposed to think nothing of the coincidence that the people who are hoarding weapons, who are primarily second amendment fanatics are also the ones terrorizing the populace via their political wing?
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
+45
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
We have camps along our southern border and people both US citizens/legal residents and Non are being terrorized/black bagged by a faction of our federal government.
And we haven't done fuck all about gun control in decades and yet this is still going on.
When does the second amendment come to the rescue?
Are we supposed to think nothing of the coincidence that the people who are hoarding weapons, who are primarily second amendment fanatics are also the ones terrorizing the populace via their political wing?
It doesn't.
The 2nd amendment isn't for actually protecting the people, it's just a talking point.
To say that suicides committed by gun are not a compelling reason to consider gun control is genuinely the most disgusting, abhorrent thing I've seen in this thread. It's shameful.
Multiple people in this thread, myself included, have had friends commit suicide via gun in the US, and to imply that the largest form of death related to the presence of guns doesn't impact your beliefs is pretty hard to divorce from the likelihood that it's the statistic that most puts the lie to your argument
I know people in Canada who similarly tried to commit suicide, but because of the lower likelihood to have guns in the household, did so by means in which they were actually able to receive help after beginning the act
To say that the value of those lives is worth less to you than the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely despicable, frankly
People who have had a loved one commit suicide by gun obviously have stronger feelings about it, but that doesn’t mean people who haven’t should be completely agnostic about it.
+26
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
We have camps along our southern border and people both US citizens/legal residents and Non are being terrorized/black bagged by a faction of our federal government.
And we haven't done fuck all about gun control in decades and yet this is still going on.
When does the second amendment come to the rescue?
Are we supposed to think nothing of the coincidence that the people who are hoarding weapons, who are primarily second amendment fanatics are also the ones terrorizing the populace via their political wing?
See, this is the thing.
Proponents of the second amendment like to talk about how integral it is to freedom.
But it's not. There's no equivalent 'right' in any other western nation, and the US is the one devolving into fascism. When is your precious second amendment supposed to start making a difference? Why haven't all the other free nations devolved into totalitarianism if such a freedom is necessary to ensure it doesn't happen?
Well, from my perspective, I can tell you that I smell nothing but horseshit with that argument. I LIVE in a nation that stands as proof of that idea being totally and completely false.
To say that suicides committed by gun are not a compelling reason to consider gun control is genuinely the most disgusting, abhorrent thing I've seen in this thread. It's shameful.
Multiple people in this thread, myself included, have had friends commit suicide via gun in the US, and to imply that the largest form of death related to the presence of guns doesn't impact your beliefs is pretty hard to divorce from the likelihood that it's the statistic that most puts the lie to your argument
I know people in Canada who similarly tried to commit suicide, but because of the lower likelihood to have guns in the household, did so by means in which they were actually able to receive help after beginning the act
To say that the value of those lives is worth less to you than the ability to own an AR-15 is absolutely despicable, frankly
People who have had a loved one commit suicide by gun obviously have stronger feelings about it, but that doesn’t mean people who haven’t should be completely agnostic about it.
My family owns several guns. A few years ago, my brother started talking about killing himself and his plan involved using a gun. My family refused to remove the guns from the house. They would have rather kept them than significantly lower his chances of killing himself. I'm still today angry about it and very much in favor of an outright ban because of people like my family that buy into the prying them from their cold, dead hands.
The Weekly Sift has an excellent piece on all the flaws in the various defenses of the Second Amendment, and a discussion on how to rewrite it to better fit the needs of the country.
The Weekly Sift has an excellent piece on all the flaws in the various defenses of the Second Amendment, and a discussion on how to rewrite it to better fit the needs of the country.
Frankly I don’t see a need to defend the second amendment. Plenty of other countries don’t have a similar item on their constitution while still allowing their citizens to own heaps of guns (assuming they’re willing to do the paperwork), similarly I see no reason why that same paperwork burden couldn’t be imported into the USA. Other than the Supreme Court, but sorting out the SCOTUS and getting votes for a constitutional amendment are probably at the same level of difficulty.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I feel like the Second Amendment is probably sticking around for a while, but there's a lot of flexibility with how it may be interpreted and enforced, if the momentum to change it can be sustained.
I feel like the Second Amendment is probably sticking around for a while, but there's a lot of flexibility with how it may be interpreted and enforced, if the momentum to change it can be sustained.
It's incredibly badly-phrased. Bad Founding Fathers!
And we've already decided we can ban fully automatic guns, so at this point we are just quibbling about the details.
We have camps along our southern border and people both US citizens/legal residents and Non are being terrorized/black bagged by a faction of our federal government.
And we haven't done fuck all about gun control in decades and yet this is still going on.
When does the second amendment come to the rescue?
Are we supposed to think nothing of the coincidence that the people who are hoarding weapons, who are primarily second amendment fanatics are also the ones terrorizing the populace via their political wing?
See, this is the thing.
Proponents of the second amendment like to talk about how integral it is to freedom.
But it's not. There's no equivalent 'right' in any other western nation, and the US is the one devolving into fascism. When is your precious second amendment supposed to start making a difference? Why haven't all the other free nations devolved into totalitarianism if such a freedom is necessary to ensure it doesn't happen?
Well, from my perspective, I can tell you that I smell nothing but horseshit with that argument. I LIVE in a nation that stands as proof of that idea being totally and completely false.
Ah, see, you're axiomatically wrong. Since the only freedom worth having is the freedom to own guns, those of us living in countries where that is more strictly regulated than in the US (which has some, just less restrictions) are axiomatically unfree and, ergo, living in totalitarian hell-countries. By contrast, the US is axiomatically the land of the free, but only if there are no (further) restrictions places on gun ownership.
(Also, as spool32 pointed out, we should be on our knees daily praising the US for freeing us from the Nazis in '45. Dunno why they bothered, though, since without unfettered less fettered access to guns, we have absolutely zero freedoms.)
In summary: 2nd amendment fetishists are weird.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+13
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I feel like the Second Amendment is probably sticking around for a while, but there's a lot of flexibility with how it may be interpreted and enforced, if the momentum to change it can be sustained.
It's incredibly badly-phrased. Bad Founding Fathers!
And we've already decided we can ban fully automatic guns, so at this point we are just quibbling about the details.
We haven’t banned them. We simply made them difficult to obtain. Which is my general point. None of this needs to involve banning any weapon, though I wouldn’t object to only allowing revolvers, pump shotguns, and bold action rifles.
Really the problem in the USA isn’t weak gun control, it’s that there is effectively no gun control. Control is really at the state level, so any idiot can buy a murder canon in, say, Nevada, and drive it to California. Hawaii, maybe, manages to have effective fun control. Everyone else is limited by their neighbors.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
While I definitely agree that more gun regulation is needed (and that we need to enforce current gun regulation) and that a national computerized, searchable registry would be an amazing idea, I don't belive that the only reason these massacres are going on is because of the availability of guns. I think it is more how we view guns and the extreme gun culture that has grown up around them. If we could be more like Switzerland things would be a lot different and all the things gun advocates say we need would still be there. Whatever it is that they have going on that they can do this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jgYJ5V2HYy4
and not kill anybody... we really really need. Like seriously, though it's from Comedy Central and the guy in it is doing a bit, everyone else around him is serious and real. However, the way he acts is pretty much how anyone here feels when they hear guns going off or if they were around a whole group of people drinking and shooting. They even have kids there that have more respect and knowledge about how guns should be used than the average gun owning American. There is definitely a middle ground between a gun owning free for all and no guns for anyone and Switzerland seems to have found it. Following them may be a very good idea.
I think we've gone around this point before, but while pro-gun advocates often like to point to Switzerland as proof that 'guns aren't the problem' or that minimal regulation can work, Switzerland's gun regulation is actually pretty strict.
-Buy a weapon requires a permit, which requires a clean criminal record (particularly WRT violent crime) and personal information.
-A weapons permit puts you into a trackable, searchable database of gun owners.
-Each weapon you buy is registered to you and entered into the same searchable database
-Any transfer of a weapon, including secondary market transfers like the kind of Craigslist sales that are often used in the US to circumvent NICS checks, requires a written record of the transfer including a check to make sure that the person receiving the weapon also has the appropriate permit
-That written record of transfer must include all the same personal information as a weapons permit, must be kept by both parties for a minimum of 10 years, and must be reported to the weapon registration bureau within 30 days to make sure the weapon registry is kept up-to-date
-Buying ammunition also requires a permit, which includes all the same information as the weapons permit as well as a security/psychiatric check. Ammo purchases are also entered into the weapon database and large purchases are can be flagged.
-To carry a firearm outdoors or in public requires an additional, more stringent permit which is generally only issued to people who can demonstrate a specific, articulable reason they need to open carry, such as working as a security guard. (Generalized 'self defense against unspecified threat' is not recognized as an articulable need to carry in public. There's an exception for hunting, provided that the carrier has a valid hunting license and is carrying the weapon only for the purpose of hunting).
-The open carry permit also requires that the applicant pass an examination requiring them to demonstrate both weapon handling and safety skills and an understanding of what constitutes lawful or unlawful use of the weapon, must be renewed (and the need for carry re-articulated) every five years, and applies only to the particular type of firearm for which the permit was issued. (A permit to carry your handgun while you work as a security guard does not entitle you to carry a rifle into a Denny's, etc.).
-Without a carry permit, guns may only be transported in public under a specific set of conditions which requires them to be unloaded and transported separately from any ammunition, and requires that the transportation only be by a reasonable route to a destination with a valid purpose (IE, you can transport your gun directly to a shooting competition or to a point of sale, but you can't keep it in your car just because or stop by the grocery store with it on your way to sell it to somebody)
-As an interesting note, the Swiss do maintain an armed militia that issues a rifle to every adult man during his service. They're allowed to keep the weapon at home rather than at an armory, and they used to be issued 50 rounds of ammo to keep in the home as well, in order to ensure rapid reaction should the militia be called...until about 10 years ago, when a Swiss man used his military-issued weapon and ammo in a mass shooting. As a result of that shooting, while the rifles are still allowed to be kept at home, ammo is no longer issued and is instead kept in the armory, and members of the swiss militia are not allowed to keep ammo for their weapon in the home unless they apply for and receive the relevant permits (which are also required if the individual wishes to keep their issued rifle at the end of their service).
Switzerland is subject to the EU Firearms Directive but as far as I know few parts of that directive are binding in Switzerland because Swiss firearms regulation is, across the board, more strict than the minimums set by the EU.
So like...yeah, Switzerland's gun laws seem pretty effective; they have around 200 gun suicides and 16 gun homicides per year. But what they have is only a 'compromise' relative to the position 'ban all guns period'; it's far more stringent than anything that's been seriously suggested in the US, certainly nothing that gun advocates would trot out as an example if they knew what it actually constituted, and even the moderate level of regulation they have would require the repeal of the 2nd amendment to institute in the US because the whole regulatory structure is built around the idea that you don't have a right to a gun and must be positively authorized to purchase one.
What this mostly tells us is that 'repeal the 2nd amendment' is the middle ground compromise position, and there's no way or reason to be argued down from it because it's a prerequisite for any reasonable level of regulation that might actually keep weapons out of the hands of shooters.
I'm still struggling to wrap my head around the fact that a searchable registry isn't currently an option in the States because the ATF is specifically forbidden in law from running any kind of non-physical database lest Foulest Tyranny. I still can't figure out whether that or the "thou shalt not research the health effects of firearms" law is the more insane one.
Sorry if this offends, but speaking as a non-US person, I just find it woefully pathetic that before you even get into the pedantic details about what kind of guns you can ban, the US makes it (next to purposefully) impossible to search for who own guns.
Surely most people back at least a proper gun ownership data base? Is it really a minority just stopping such an obvious thing being created?
I don’t know how some of you get up in the morning knowing this kind of obstructionist bollox goes on all the time.
Gun owners hate the idea of a gun database almost as much as a gun ban. To them it's the first step towards mass confiscation. But considering they're going to be 100% against literally any gun control measure, nothing will get done until we get a majority in congress and senate and a Democrat in the White House and then hope the conservative stacked Supreme Court doesn't strike it down because if the founders wanted a computer database, they would have written it into the constitution or some other bullshit made up justification.
Honestly, this country just pisses me the fuck off sometimes.
I'm still struggling to wrap my head around the fact that a searchable registry isn't currently an option in the States because the ATF is specifically forbidden in law from running any kind of non-physical database lest Foulest Tyranny. I still can't figure out whether that or the "thou shalt not research the health effects of firearms" law is the more insane one.
It’s honestly not that hard if you pretend you are a monster for a moment.
Pretend that you are a weapons manufacturer. Now pretend that a mass shooting just happened and it’s all the media are talking about. Politicians are talking about stricter gun control laws. Politicians on the other side are doing their thing as well.
Now you notice that your weapons are selling more after this mass shooting. In part due to people being afraid of being shot and want to arm themselves for protection, also in part by people afraid of gun control laws passing and they want to buy more guns in case gun reform gets passed and they won’t be able to later. Either way, in the wake of this mass shooting your profits go up.
So what would you do if mass shootings increased your profits and your are a soulless monster?
If you think about that and draw it to its logical conclusion, you’ll see how we ended up here. It’s not just guns manufacturers that do this either; the tobacco, oil and gas, opioid, and other harmful industries do this too. They know what they do hurts people, they just don’t care because money.
It has nothing to do with freedom or rights.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+14
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I'm still struggling to wrap my head around the fact that a searchable registry isn't currently an option in the States because the ATF is specifically forbidden in law from running any kind of non-physical database lest Foulest Tyranny. I still can't figure out whether that or the "thou shalt not research the health effects of firearms" law is the more insane one.
US Firearms policy is fucking wacko. All the advocacy organizations are run by a group disingenuous shills for the firearms corporations that scream as loud as possible against any sort of restriction against firearms purchases as a kind of imposition upon essential freedom itself. They scaremonger their civilian membership into the notion that the Big Bad Government is coming to get their guns and also maybe steal their internal organs while they're at it (and they're going to make your children be gay and become art history major or what the fuck ever). They lobby Republicans hard to shut down any and all reasonable methods to catalog, track, and research the effects of having engines of murder available to the general population, and while they're at it they scream at Democrats for being "unAmerican" for wanting to maybe possibly at some point think about doing something about all this gun violence that plagues our country?
It's all aided by a massive right-wing media landscape that deals in lies and conspiracy theories to whip up support for paranoia and arms stockpiling among idiot white Americans who claim to not be racist, but in fact would be happy to live in a white ethnostate given half the chance ("Life is just less complicated when your neighbors are also white!"). This is why, for the longest time, the NRA was a big sponsor of AM talk radio and the once nascent right wing vlog-o-sphere that now froths its way across YouTube, coasting on a tide of algorithmic assistance and sponsored ad buys from firearms manufacturers (before they basically ran out of money).
America has a lot of good ideas and practices when it comes to certain political ideas, but guns isn't one of them.
+6
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I've said it before, I'll say it again: The NRA itself is the most successful ad campaign since the heyday of cigarettes.
It's incredibly badly-phrased. Bad Founding Fathers!
I suspect that the Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they set up the phrasing. Not that deliberately tossing the ball to future generations doesn't make them bad, of course.
While I definitely agree that more gun regulation is needed (and that we need to enforce current gun regulation) and that a national computerized, searchable registry would be an amazing idea, I don't belive that the only reason these massacres are going on is because of the availability of guns. I think it is more how we view guns and the extreme gun culture that has grown up around them. If we could be more like Switzerland things would be a lot different and all the things gun advocates say we need would still be there. Whatever it is that they have going on that they can do this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jgYJ5V2HYy4
and not kill anybody... we really really need. Like seriously, though it's from Comedy Central and the guy in it is doing a bit, everyone else around him is serious and real. However, the way he acts is pretty much how anyone here feels when they hear guns going off or if they were around a whole group of people drinking and shooting. They even have kids there that have more respect and knowledge about how guns should be used than the average gun owning American. There is definitely a middle ground between a gun owning free for all and no guns for anyone and Switzerland seems to have found it. Following them may be a very good idea.
I think we've gone around this point before, but while pro-gun advocates often like to point to Switzerland as proof that 'guns aren't the problem' or that minimal regulation can work, Switzerland's gun regulation is actually pretty strict.
-Buy a weapon requires a permit, which requires a clean criminal record (particularly WRT violent crime) and personal information.
-A weapons permit puts you into a trackable, searchable database of gun owners.
-Each weapon you buy is registered to you and entered into the same searchable database
-Any transfer of a weapon, including secondary market transfers like the kind of Craigslist sales that are often used in the US to circumvent NICS checks, requires a written record of the transfer including a check to make sure that the person receiving the weapon also has the appropriate permit
-That written record of transfer must include all the same personal information as a weapons permit, must be kept by both parties for a minimum of 10 years, and must be reported to the weapon registration bureau within 30 days to make sure the weapon registry is kept up-to-date
-Buying ammunition also requires a permit, which includes all the same information as the weapons permit as well as a security/psychiatric check. Ammo purchases are also entered into the weapon database and large purchases are can be flagged.
-To carry a firearm outdoors or in public requires an additional, more stringent permit which is generally only issued to people who can demonstrate a specific, articulable reason they need to open carry, such as working as a security guard. (Generalized 'self defense against unspecified threat' is not recognized as an articulable need to carry in public. There's an exception for hunting, provided that the carrier has a valid hunting license and is carrying the weapon only for the purpose of hunting).
-The open carry permit also requires that the applicant pass an examination requiring them to demonstrate both weapon handling and safety skills and an understanding of what constitutes lawful or unlawful use of the weapon, must be renewed (and the need for carry re-articulated) every five years, and applies only to the particular type of firearm for which the permit was issued. (A permit to carry your handgun while you work as a security guard does not entitle you to carry a rifle into a Denny's, etc.).
-Without a carry permit, guns may only be transported in public under a specific set of conditions which requires them to be unloaded and transported separately from any ammunition, and requires that the transportation only be by a reasonable route to a destination with a valid purpose (IE, you can transport your gun directly to a shooting competition or to a point of sale, but you can't keep it in your car just because or stop by the grocery store with it on your way to sell it to somebody)
-As an interesting note, the Swiss do maintain an armed militia that issues a rifle to every adult man during his service. They're allowed to keep the weapon at home rather than at an armory, and they used to be issued 50 rounds of ammo to keep in the home as well, in order to ensure rapid reaction should the militia be called...until about 10 years ago, when a Swiss man used his military-issued weapon and ammo in a mass shooting. As a result of that shooting, while the rifles are still allowed to be kept at home, ammo is no longer issued and is instead kept in the armory, and members of the swiss militia are not allowed to keep ammo for their weapon in the home unless they apply for and receive the relevant permits (which are also required if the individual wishes to keep their issued rifle at the end of their service).
Switzerland is subject to the EU Firearms Directive but as far as I know few parts of that directive are binding in Switzerland because Swiss firearms regulation is, across the board, more strict than the minimums set by the EU.
So like...yeah, Switzerland's gun laws seem pretty effective; they have around 200 gun suicides and 16 gun homicides per year. But what they have is only a 'compromise' relative to the position 'ban all guns period'; it's far more stringent than anything that's been seriously suggested in the US, certainly nothing that gun advocates would trot out as an example if they knew what it actually constituted, and even the moderate level of regulation they have would require the repeal of the 2nd amendment to institute in the US because the whole regulatory structure is built around the idea that you don't have a right to a gun and must be positively authorized to purchase one.
What this mostly tells us is that 'repeal the 2nd amendment' is the middle ground compromise position, and there's no way or reason to be argued down from it because it's a prerequisite for any reasonable level of regulation that might actually keep weapons out of the hands of shooters.
Oh, I'm not pointing to them and saying look at them, we are just fine as we are. I'm saying (and said) look at them, we need to emulate them because they can use guns like that and not harm anyone. This is something to strive for. Looks like it has everything the gun loving culture wants (and more) yet none of the massacres we currently put up with. A country is out there where this works and they aren't enslaved or lacking freedoms. They really look to be enjoying themselves and even the youngest of them respect firearms and are quite knowledgeable about how to shoot them (as well as being good at it).
Edit: While I am a gun owner (i mentioned this in the very beginning of the thread) I only own a .22 and a bolt action Mosin Nagant. I've grown up respecting weapons and being taught in their usage and maintenance. My grandfather made his own ammo and even built his own musket (replicating the older styles). I am all for more regulation and actually making our current regulation work. I'm even more for a computerized database (as I mentioned before) and wasn't even aware that this wasn't in existence until this very thread. I do not want to lose what I have and give up firearms completely, but there is obviously something in between what the US currently has and complete disarmament and the Swiss have that. We NEED that. This is more or less towards those saying complete disarmament is the only way forward... it obviously isn't. We do need more people (politicians, the NRA [as if] acting in good faith, but something needs to change. What we have now is not working... except for those that want to kill as many as possible and go out in a blaze of 'glory'. That's the only group our current laws seem to be protecting, since lord knows we can't take their toys away.
It's incredibly badly-phrased. Bad Founding Fathers!
I suspect that the Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they set up the phrasing. Not that deliberately tossing the ball to future generations doesn't make them bad, of course.
Unless they were psychic, they had absolutely no idea how good and cheap guns were going to get. You might as well blame us for our traffic laws not having any provision for flying, self-driving cars.
The Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be a living document that was to be updated as necessary. Our obsession with canonizing them and their works as infallible saints has led to a whole host of problems, the Second Amendment being only one of them.
Sorry if this offends, but speaking as a non-US person, I just find it woefully pathetic that before you even get into the pedantic details about what kind of guns you can ban, the US makes it (next to purposefully) impossible to search for who own guns.
Surely most people back at least a proper gun ownership data base? Is it really a minority just stopping such an obvious thing being created?
I don’t know how some of you get up in the morning knowing this kind of obstructionist bollox goes on all the time.
Gun owners hate the idea of a gun database almost as much as a gun ban. To them it's the first step towards mass confiscation. But considering they're going to be 100% against literally any gun control measure, nothing will get done until we get a majority in congress and senate and a Democrat in the White House and then hope the conservative stacked Supreme Court doesn't strike it down because if the founders wanted a computer database, they would have written it into the constitution or some other bullshit made up justification.
Honestly, this country just pisses me the fuck off sometimes.
Gun owner here, database wanted, nay needed. Try not to throw out generalizations. If you want to say gun nuts, I'll agree with you. But all gun owners are not the same. The ones who want those AR-15s and the 'zombie' ammo/marketing are so far away from the type of gun owner I am that we may as well not even be classified as the same type of people. Generalizations will get us nowhere.
And before anyone throws me under the suicide bus - I'm a highly depressed person who has wanted to take my own life and very nearly did. It terrifies me to this day how close I came. So more than any of you I actually understand the loss that occurs from having some items available and within reach of people in such circumstances. Trust me, even rifles would do if you're wanting it enough. Using that against those who aren't as fervent as you is not acting in good faith and thinking that all in that category would be likely to use arms against others is also wrong. I'd cause harm to myself before laying a hand on anyone and even the thought of turning one of my rifles on an actual living being (animal or human) sickens me - literally. The violence we've been seeing recently literally makes me so ill I have to call out of work. I want things to change. If I had a way to bring about these changes I would do it myself... I have no clue what to do outside of make my voice heard in places like this. America could use with a rearranging of how it views guns and the way they are fetishized in our culture. So much needs to change.
Sorry if this offends, but speaking as a non-US person, I just find it woefully pathetic that before you even get into the pedantic details about what kind of guns you can ban, the US makes it (next to purposefully) impossible to search for who own guns.
Surely most people back at least a proper gun ownership data base? Is it really a minority just stopping such an obvious thing being created?
I don’t know how some of you get up in the morning knowing this kind of obstructionist bollox goes on all the time.
Gun owners hate the idea of a gun database almost as much as a gun ban. To them it's the first step towards mass confiscation. But considering they're going to be 100% against literally any gun control measure, nothing will get done until we get a majority in congress and senate and a Democrat in the White House and then hope the conservative stacked Supreme Court doesn't strike it down because if the founders wanted a computer database, they would have written it into the constitution or some other bullshit made up justification.
Honestly, this country just pisses me the fuck off sometimes.
Gun owner here, database wanted, nay needed. Try not to throw out generalizations. If you want to say gun nuts, I'll agree with you. But all gun owners are not the same. The ones who want those AR-15s and the 'zombie' ammo/marketing are so far away from the type of gun owner I am that we may as well not even be classified as the same type of people. Generalizations will get us nowhere.
And before anyone throws me under the suicide bus - I'm a highly depressed person who has wanted to take my own life and very nearly did. It terrifies me to this day how close I came. So more than any of you I actually understand the loss that occurs from having some items available and within reach of people in such circumstances. Trust me, even rifles would do if you're wanting it enough. Using that against those who aren't as fervent as you is not acting in good faith and thinking that all in that category would be likely to use arms against others is also wrong. I'd cause harm to myself before laying a hand on anyone and even the thought of turning one of my rifles on an actual living being (animal or human) sickens me - literally. The violence we've been seeing recently literally makes me so ill I have to call out of work. I want things to change. If I had a way to bring about these changes I would do it myself... I have no clue what to do outside of make my voice heard in places like this. America could use with a rearranging of how it views guns and the way they are fetishized in our culture. So much needs to change.
Posts
I am struggling to see what "everyone who disagrees with me is an authoritarian" brings to the thread except a persecution complex.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Yes, when you grossly misrepresent my post that will probably be an issue.
Also as has been pointed out repeatedly, plenty of other countries have much stricter gun laws without descending in to unchecked authoritarianism.
Am I though? You start with saying a desire to disarm citizenry is "despicable", and call it an "authoritarian position", then go on to say these same people espouse "frankly authoritarian ideas" on other topics. That, to me, reads like people disagreeing with you (or as you put it, wanting to disarm the citizenry) are people you consider to be authoritarians.
If there's another reading of your post I don't know what it might be, or how one would go about deciphering it.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Or you do a flying drop kick into Lucy because enough is enough and her words mean nothing
No, I do not consider simple disagreement "authoritarianism". I consider authoritarian policy preferences to be authoritarian.
I mean, I guess I could have added "about gun control" after the word "disagreeing" in my post and been more precise, but I don't think your original (fairly insulting and not particularly productive) post really deserved such even-handed and reasonable consideration.
Regardless, if you want to discuss it further take it to PMs and include another D&D mod on it. We're done discussing it in the thread.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
You don’t even need a second amendment to be able to arm yourself, that’s a strawman argument.
The vast majority of countries don’t have a right to bear arms, yet many of them have ways to own weapons for a variety of reasons ranging from necessities like rural animal control/defense, to food/sports hunting, and even casual range shooting for fun.
If a false argument to say that gun control laws or even a complete repeal of the second amendment will lead to the abolishment of all guns forever. Many counties have both no basic right to weapons and heavy regulations, yet can still own them with effort.
If you are a responsible gun owner, then you’ll still be a responsible gun owner after any kind of gun reform for your farm defense or hobby. If you are not a responsible gun owner, well sorry, guns aren’t toys.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
It's authoritarian in as much as people refusing to feed saturated fats to someone immobilized by morbid obesity is.
Plenty of countries have far tighter gun control than the USA while still allowing people to own semi-automatic weapons.
The Czech Republic's regulations:
However, to get a gun license there's more than a few hoops to jump through:
And other than age, none of those conditions are trivial. There's serious poking and prodding happening on all those fronts. The rate of firearms related deaths here is equivalent to Canada's. (CZ 2.01, CAN 2.00)
Do you believe that the citizens of basically every other country on earth are living under authoritarian rule and are suffering because they aren't allowed to own guns like in the United States?
I went over this before with Dongs, but you seem have the same idea that the citizenry needs to be armed for "reasons". Open your eyes and look around the world. This problem only exists in the United States. It is uniquely American. There's also something else regarding guns that is also uniquely American.
I would actually rather you be arguing in bad faith in this instance, because merely presenting this argument in bad faith would be less objectionable to me than you having a sincerely-held belief that you're fine with the number of people injured and killed by firearms in this country, because you genuinely believe that restricting your ability to purchase firearms is worse than that.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
People who want gun control: primarily on the left
People pushing authoritarian policy: on the right
It's not really coincidental that the fascists are also the pro-gun side of the political fight in DC.
and not kill anybody... we really really need. Like seriously, though it's from Comedy Central and the guy in it is doing a bit, everyone else around him is serious and real. However, the way he acts is pretty much how anyone here feels when they hear guns going off or if they were around a whole group of people drinking and shooting. They even have kids there that have more respect and knowledge about how guns should be used than the average gun owning American. There is definitely a middle ground between a gun owning free for all and no guns for anyone and Switzerland seems to have found it. Following them may be a very good idea.
And we haven't done fuck all about gun control in decades and yet this is still going on.
When does the second amendment come to the rescue?
Are we supposed to think nothing of the coincidence that the people who are hoarding weapons, who are primarily second amendment fanatics are also the ones terrorizing the populace via their political wing?
Come Overwatch with meeeee
It doesn't.
The 2nd amendment isn't for actually protecting the people, it's just a talking point.
People who have had a loved one commit suicide by gun obviously have stronger feelings about it, but that doesn’t mean people who haven’t should be completely agnostic about it.
See, this is the thing.
Proponents of the second amendment like to talk about how integral it is to freedom.
But it's not. There's no equivalent 'right' in any other western nation, and the US is the one devolving into fascism. When is your precious second amendment supposed to start making a difference? Why haven't all the other free nations devolved into totalitarianism if such a freedom is necessary to ensure it doesn't happen?
Well, from my perspective, I can tell you that I smell nothing but horseshit with that argument. I LIVE in a nation that stands as proof of that idea being totally and completely false.
My family owns several guns. A few years ago, my brother started talking about killing himself and his plan involved using a gun. My family refused to remove the guns from the house. They would have rather kept them than significantly lower his chances of killing himself. I'm still today angry about it and very much in favor of an outright ban because of people like my family that buy into the prying them from their cold, dead hands.
Frankly I don’t see a need to defend the second amendment. Plenty of other countries don’t have a similar item on their constitution while still allowing their citizens to own heaps of guns (assuming they’re willing to do the paperwork), similarly I see no reason why that same paperwork burden couldn’t be imported into the USA. Other than the Supreme Court, but sorting out the SCOTUS and getting votes for a constitutional amendment are probably at the same level of difficulty.
It's incredibly badly-phrased. Bad Founding Fathers!
And we've already decided we can ban fully automatic guns, so at this point we are just quibbling about the details.
Ah, see, you're axiomatically wrong. Since the only freedom worth having is the freedom to own guns, those of us living in countries where that is more strictly regulated than in the US (which has some, just less restrictions) are axiomatically unfree and, ergo, living in totalitarian hell-countries. By contrast, the US is axiomatically the land of the free, but only if there are no (further) restrictions places on gun ownership.
(Also, as spool32 pointed out, we should be on our knees daily praising the US for freeing us from the Nazis in '45. Dunno why they bothered, though, since without unfettered less fettered access to guns, we have absolutely zero freedoms.)
In summary: 2nd amendment fetishists are weird.
We haven’t banned them. We simply made them difficult to obtain. Which is my general point. None of this needs to involve banning any weapon, though I wouldn’t object to only allowing revolvers, pump shotguns, and bold action rifles.
Really the problem in the USA isn’t weak gun control, it’s that there is effectively no gun control. Control is really at the state level, so any idiot can buy a murder canon in, say, Nevada, and drive it to California. Hawaii, maybe, manages to have effective fun control. Everyone else is limited by their neighbors.
Hawaii has no "fun control"! It's all hula and pig roasts there.
I think we've gone around this point before, but while pro-gun advocates often like to point to Switzerland as proof that 'guns aren't the problem' or that minimal regulation can work, Switzerland's gun regulation is actually pretty strict.
-Buy a weapon requires a permit, which requires a clean criminal record (particularly WRT violent crime) and personal information.
-A weapons permit puts you into a trackable, searchable database of gun owners.
-Each weapon you buy is registered to you and entered into the same searchable database
-Any transfer of a weapon, including secondary market transfers like the kind of Craigslist sales that are often used in the US to circumvent NICS checks, requires a written record of the transfer including a check to make sure that the person receiving the weapon also has the appropriate permit
-That written record of transfer must include all the same personal information as a weapons permit, must be kept by both parties for a minimum of 10 years, and must be reported to the weapon registration bureau within 30 days to make sure the weapon registry is kept up-to-date
-Buying ammunition also requires a permit, which includes all the same information as the weapons permit as well as a security/psychiatric check. Ammo purchases are also entered into the weapon database and large purchases are can be flagged.
-To carry a firearm outdoors or in public requires an additional, more stringent permit which is generally only issued to people who can demonstrate a specific, articulable reason they need to open carry, such as working as a security guard. (Generalized 'self defense against unspecified threat' is not recognized as an articulable need to carry in public. There's an exception for hunting, provided that the carrier has a valid hunting license and is carrying the weapon only for the purpose of hunting).
-The open carry permit also requires that the applicant pass an examination requiring them to demonstrate both weapon handling and safety skills and an understanding of what constitutes lawful or unlawful use of the weapon, must be renewed (and the need for carry re-articulated) every five years, and applies only to the particular type of firearm for which the permit was issued. (A permit to carry your handgun while you work as a security guard does not entitle you to carry a rifle into a Denny's, etc.).
-Without a carry permit, guns may only be transported in public under a specific set of conditions which requires them to be unloaded and transported separately from any ammunition, and requires that the transportation only be by a reasonable route to a destination with a valid purpose (IE, you can transport your gun directly to a shooting competition or to a point of sale, but you can't keep it in your car just because or stop by the grocery store with it on your way to sell it to somebody)
-As an interesting note, the Swiss do maintain an armed militia that issues a rifle to every adult man during his service. They're allowed to keep the weapon at home rather than at an armory, and they used to be issued 50 rounds of ammo to keep in the home as well, in order to ensure rapid reaction should the militia be called...until about 10 years ago, when a Swiss man used his military-issued weapon and ammo in a mass shooting. As a result of that shooting, while the rifles are still allowed to be kept at home, ammo is no longer issued and is instead kept in the armory, and members of the swiss militia are not allowed to keep ammo for their weapon in the home unless they apply for and receive the relevant permits (which are also required if the individual wishes to keep their issued rifle at the end of their service).
Switzerland is subject to the EU Firearms Directive but as far as I know few parts of that directive are binding in Switzerland because Swiss firearms regulation is, across the board, more strict than the minimums set by the EU.
So like...yeah, Switzerland's gun laws seem pretty effective; they have around 200 gun suicides and 16 gun homicides per year. But what they have is only a 'compromise' relative to the position 'ban all guns period'; it's far more stringent than anything that's been seriously suggested in the US, certainly nothing that gun advocates would trot out as an example if they knew what it actually constituted, and even the moderate level of regulation they have would require the repeal of the 2nd amendment to institute in the US because the whole regulatory structure is built around the idea that you don't have a right to a gun and must be positively authorized to purchase one.
What this mostly tells us is that 'repeal the 2nd amendment' is the middle ground compromise position, and there's no way or reason to be argued down from it because it's a prerequisite for any reasonable level of regulation that might actually keep weapons out of the hands of shooters.
Gun owners hate the idea of a gun database almost as much as a gun ban. To them it's the first step towards mass confiscation. But considering they're going to be 100% against literally any gun control measure, nothing will get done until we get a majority in congress and senate and a Democrat in the White House and then hope the conservative stacked Supreme Court doesn't strike it down because if the founders wanted a computer database, they would have written it into the constitution or some other bullshit made up justification.
Honestly, this country just pisses me the fuck off sometimes.
It’s honestly not that hard if you pretend you are a monster for a moment.
Pretend that you are a weapons manufacturer. Now pretend that a mass shooting just happened and it’s all the media are talking about. Politicians are talking about stricter gun control laws. Politicians on the other side are doing their thing as well.
Now you notice that your weapons are selling more after this mass shooting. In part due to people being afraid of being shot and want to arm themselves for protection, also in part by people afraid of gun control laws passing and they want to buy more guns in case gun reform gets passed and they won’t be able to later. Either way, in the wake of this mass shooting your profits go up.
So what would you do if mass shootings increased your profits and your are a soulless monster?
If you think about that and draw it to its logical conclusion, you’ll see how we ended up here. It’s not just guns manufacturers that do this either; the tobacco, oil and gas, opioid, and other harmful industries do this too. They know what they do hurts people, they just don’t care because money.
It has nothing to do with freedom or rights.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
US Firearms policy is fucking wacko. All the advocacy organizations are run by a group disingenuous shills for the firearms corporations that scream as loud as possible against any sort of restriction against firearms purchases as a kind of imposition upon essential freedom itself. They scaremonger their civilian membership into the notion that the Big Bad Government is coming to get their guns and also maybe steal their internal organs while they're at it (and they're going to make your children be gay and become art history major or what the fuck ever). They lobby Republicans hard to shut down any and all reasonable methods to catalog, track, and research the effects of having engines of murder available to the general population, and while they're at it they scream at Democrats for being "unAmerican" for wanting to maybe possibly at some point think about doing something about all this gun violence that plagues our country?
It's all aided by a massive right-wing media landscape that deals in lies and conspiracy theories to whip up support for paranoia and arms stockpiling among idiot white Americans who claim to not be racist, but in fact would be happy to live in a white ethnostate given half the chance ("Life is just less complicated when your neighbors are also white!"). This is why, for the longest time, the NRA was a big sponsor of AM talk radio and the once nascent right wing vlog-o-sphere that now froths its way across YouTube, coasting on a tide of algorithmic assistance and sponsored ad buys from firearms manufacturers (before they basically ran out of money).
America has a lot of good ideas and practices when it comes to certain political ideas, but guns isn't one of them.
I suspect that the Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they set up the phrasing. Not that deliberately tossing the ball to future generations doesn't make them bad, of course.
Oh, I'm not pointing to them and saying look at them, we are just fine as we are. I'm saying (and said) look at them, we need to emulate them because they can use guns like that and not harm anyone. This is something to strive for. Looks like it has everything the gun loving culture wants (and more) yet none of the massacres we currently put up with. A country is out there where this works and they aren't enslaved or lacking freedoms. They really look to be enjoying themselves and even the youngest of them respect firearms and are quite knowledgeable about how to shoot them (as well as being good at it).
Edit: While I am a gun owner (i mentioned this in the very beginning of the thread) I only own a .22 and a bolt action Mosin Nagant. I've grown up respecting weapons and being taught in their usage and maintenance. My grandfather made his own ammo and even built his own musket (replicating the older styles). I am all for more regulation and actually making our current regulation work. I'm even more for a computerized database (as I mentioned before) and wasn't even aware that this wasn't in existence until this very thread. I do not want to lose what I have and give up firearms completely, but there is obviously something in between what the US currently has and complete disarmament and the Swiss have that. We NEED that. This is more or less towards those saying complete disarmament is the only way forward... it obviously isn't. We do need more people (politicians, the NRA [as if] acting in good faith, but something needs to change. What we have now is not working... except for those that want to kill as many as possible and go out in a blaze of 'glory'. That's the only group our current laws seem to be protecting, since lord knows we can't take their toys away.
Unless they were psychic, they had absolutely no idea how good and cheap guns were going to get. You might as well blame us for our traffic laws not having any provision for flying, self-driving cars.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Gun owner here, database wanted, nay needed. Try not to throw out generalizations. If you want to say gun nuts, I'll agree with you. But all gun owners are not the same. The ones who want those AR-15s and the 'zombie' ammo/marketing are so far away from the type of gun owner I am that we may as well not even be classified as the same type of people. Generalizations will get us nowhere.
And before anyone throws me under the suicide bus - I'm a highly depressed person who has wanted to take my own life and very nearly did. It terrifies me to this day how close I came. So more than any of you I actually understand the loss that occurs from having some items available and within reach of people in such circumstances. Trust me, even rifles would do if you're wanting it enough. Using that against those who aren't as fervent as you is not acting in good faith and thinking that all in that category would be likely to use arms against others is also wrong. I'd cause harm to myself before laying a hand on anyone and even the thought of turning one of my rifles on an actual living being (animal or human) sickens me - literally. The violence we've been seeing recently literally makes me so ill I have to call out of work. I want things to change. If I had a way to bring about these changes I would do it myself... I have no clue what to do outside of make my voice heard in places like this. America could use with a rearranging of how it views guns and the way they are fetishized in our culture. So much needs to change.
Depression is bad. :bro: