geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: MeltingTeeth on Tue, 05 January 2016, 11:47:48
-
Get prepared for more paperwork:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/obama-executive-action-on-guns-to-require-background-checks-for-more-sales.html
-
HOW DARE HE!
Any lunatic should be legally allowed to buy guns!
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
-
HOW DARE HE!
Any lunatic should be legally allowed to buy guns!
LMAO
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows. Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.
The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check? Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50. That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask. *Slight edit: California requires this.
Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.
By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters. I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows. Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.
The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check? Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50. That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask. *Slight edit: California requires this.
Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.
By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters. I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.
True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
Exactly. I'm pro gun and own guns, but closing the gun show sale loophole is a very sensible gun law change.
Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that all new gun owners should be mandated to undergo firearm safety training and familiarization training on a range and established gun owners should undergo a brief safety course (even if just online) every 5-10 years for gun owners. If you have to have training and a learner's permit, a test, and insurance to drive, it only makes sense for something equally dangerous to have safety requirements in place for you to buy it.
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
Exactly. I'm pro gun and own guns, but closing the gun show sale loophole is a very sensible gun law change.
Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that all new gun owners should be mandated to undergo firearm safety training and familiarization training on a range and established gun owners should undergo a brief safety course (even if just online) every 5-10 years for gun owners. If you have to have training and a learner's permit, a test, and insurance to drive, it only makes sense for something equally dangerous to have safety requirements in place for you to buy it.
:thumb: :thumb:
As an avid hunter and owner of firearms I agree with this.
Too many idiots out there, responsible people shouldn't need to worry if you're not doing anything wrong.
-
I'm Pro Gun myself but I'm all for a more detailed background check. In my state I can walk into ****'s Sporting Goods, hand them my ID, wait 2-3 minutes for them to check it, and then I can walk out with a rifle. Hell I honestly wouldn't mind random visits from the Government to ensure that the guns are safely stored and within your own possession. I chose this topic for my senior topic and ended up writing a 10 page research paper on it, not saying that makes my voice any louder than others but just that I enjoy reading into the subject.
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
Exactly. I'm pro gun and own guns, but closing the gun show sale loophole is a very sensible gun law change.
Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that all new gun owners should be mandated to undergo firearm safety training and familiarization training on a range and established gun owners should undergo a brief safety course (even if just online) every 5-10 years for gun owners. If you have to have training and a learner's permit, a test, and insurance to drive, it only makes sense for something equally dangerous to have safety requirements in place for you to buy it.
Years ago when I got my CHL, a lady in my class had never even shot a gun before that day. She missed the target completely on all rounds she fired.
The gun show loophole is a tough one. I don't agree with the way it is being done, but I understand the reasoning on it.
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows. Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.
The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check? Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50. That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask. *Slight edit: California requires this.
Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.
By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters. I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.
True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!
Nice strawman. Yes, in arguing for a $200 tax stamp to be removed, is clearly the same thing as removing all regulations entirely from firearms. Not like it reduces hearing loss or anything.
Like I stated, keeping the suppressor under the National Firearms Act and have all the regulations adhere to it as normal. Just not the $200 fee whenever you buy it. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that suppressors are much more common place in the UK than in the US. http://www.soundmoderators.co.uk/
Nubb, not to play devil's advocate here, but you are comparing a right and a privilege (although that could be argued). I could also argue that you only need to have training, a permit, a test, and insurance to drive on public roads. Don't need them on private property (although might not really be beneficial). Problem with that thinking is effecting the poor or people who live farther away from one of these training areas.
That being said. I don't see any problem in more thorough background checks. In fact, I'd argue the majority of people have no problems with that. It seems that usually there is more to a bill than just increasing that aspect of firearm laws.
Steezus, that 4th amendment thing might get in the way of that government checks thing.
-
I am in the military, own guns, live in texas, the whole shibang.
I agree with this. It amazes me how easily I have bought my guns. 0 Background checks and I am no way tied to my weapons at all.
If it is easy for me, it is easy for others as well.
All these conspiracy theorist think Obama is trying to disarm America so he can take over it.
1st. I don't care how many guns you own or how well trained you are in black ops 2. You wouldn't stop the government.
2nd. the 1st will never happen.
3rd. The right to bare arms was made when guns took minutes to reload one round. As guns have changed (for better and worse) so should regulations. I don't understand why people feel like they can buy/sell guns and have no responsibility as to what happens with that gun.
I feel like everyone should have a background check and be licensed before they can buy a gun, and all guns serial numbers need to be tied to the owner. that way if their gun was used in a crime the gun can be traced back. Ignorance is not an excuse.
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows. Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.
The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check? Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50. That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask. *Slight edit: California requires this.
Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.
By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters. I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.
True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!
Nice strawman. Yes, in arguing for a $200 tax stamp to be removed, is clearly the same thing as removing all regulations entirely from firearms. Not like it reduces hearing loss or anything.
Like I stated, keeping the suppressor under the National Firearms Act and have all the regulations adhere to it as normal. Just not the $200 fee whenever you buy it. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that suppressors are much more common place in the UK than in the US. http://www.soundmoderators.co.uk/
...yeah, tbf everyone has around 2-3 suppressors over here. I've got 6 and I don't even own a gun.
Though I don't see a reason for that tax to be removed, as dosn't it essentially act as a tax on large(r) caliber weapons? You want a bigger louder gun, you have to pay more tax, or you loose your hearing, why is that a bad thing? If you can't or struggle to justify the cost of an extra $200 I worry about the storage you (or anyone else) would have for such a weapon...
-
I'm not pro or anti gun[1] but lord do I hate the second amendment! It's used to justify all sorts of crazy notions that have lead to tens of thousands of deaths in the US. For example, a handgun is an absolutely terrible "home defense" weapon[2], but is awesome for murdering people!
I say allow all weapons that were available at the drafting of the second amendment[3] to be ownable without a license, but everything else that has been invented since requires a test and a license, just like we do for driving.
[1] I've used guns of all types and enjoy skeet shooting, but don't hunt
[2] A 9mm will go through a number of pieces of drywall and still be deadly to the family you're supposedly protecting
[3] Muzzle loaders are still used in hunting.
-
Relevant:
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/how-firearm-background-checks-work-52121
-
Get prepared for more paperwork:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/obama-executive-action-on-guns-to-require-background-checks-for-more-sales.html
LAW
Because PAPERWORK is DRAMATIC.
Please someone get this reference
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows. Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.
The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check? Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50. That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask. *Slight edit: California requires this.
Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.
By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters. I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.
True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!
Nice strawman. Yes, in arguing for a $200 tax stamp to be removed, is clearly the same thing as removing all regulations entirely from firearms. Not like it reduces hearing loss or anything.
Like I stated, keeping the suppressor under the National Firearms Act and have all the regulations adhere to it as normal. Just not the $200 fee whenever you buy it. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that suppressors are much more common place in the UK than in the US. http://www.soundmoderators.co.uk/
Nubb, not to play devil's advocate here, but you are comparing a right and a privilege (although that could be argued). I could also argue that you only need to have training, a permit, a test, and insurance to drive on public roads. Don't need them on private property (although might not really be beneficial). Problem with that thinking is effecting the poor or people who live farther away from one of these training areas.
That being said. I don't see any problem in more thorough background checks. In fact, I'd argue the majority of people have no problems with that. It seems that usually there is more to a bill than just increasing that aspect of firearm laws.
Steezus, that 4th amendment thing might get in the way of that government checks thing.
You're arguing with an idiot. Don't waste your time. 99% of the time he has no idea what the **** he's talking about.
-
...yeah, tbf everyone has around 2-3 suppressors over here. I've got 6 and I don't even own a gun.
Though I don't see a reason for that tax to be removed, as dosn't it essentially act as a tax on large(r) caliber weapons? You want a bigger louder gun, you have to pay more tax, or you loose your hearing, why is that a bad thing? If you can't or struggle to justify the cost of an extra $200 I worry about the storage you (or anyone else) would have for such a weapon...
:))
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
Exactly. I'm pro gun and own guns, but closing the gun show sale loophole is a very sensible gun law change.
Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that all new gun owners should be mandated to undergo firearm safety training and familiarization training on a range and established gun owners should undergo a brief safety course (even if just online) every 5-10 years for gun owners. If you have to have training and a learner's permit, a test, and insurance to drive, it only makes sense for something equally dangerous to have safety requirements in place for you to buy it.
Well said, I agree with this.
-
As long as I can buy an SKS in the future I'm ok :P
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows. Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.
The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check? Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50. That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask. *Slight edit: California requires this.
Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.
By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters. I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.
True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!
Nice strawman. Yes, in arguing for a $200 tax stamp to be removed, is clearly the same thing as removing all regulations entirely from firearms. Not like it reduces hearing loss or anything.
Like I stated, keeping the suppressor under the National Firearms Act and have all the regulations adhere to it as normal. Just not the $200 fee whenever you buy it. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that suppressors are much more common place in the UK than in the US. http://www.soundmoderators.co.uk/
Nubb, not to play devil's advocate here, but you are comparing a right and a privilege (although that could be argued). I could also argue that you only need to have training, a permit, a test, and insurance to drive on public roads. Don't need them on private property (although might not really be beneficial). Problem with that thinking is effecting the poor or people who live farther away from one of these training areas.
That being said. I don't see any problem in more thorough background checks. In fact, I'd argue the majority of people have no problems with that. It seems that usually there is more to a bill than just increasing that aspect of firearm laws.
Steezus, that 4th amendment thing might get in the way of that government checks thing.
You're arguing with an idiot. Don't waste your time. 99% of the time he has no idea what the **** he's talking about.
wow so rude
-
Steezus, that 4th amendment thing might get in the way of that government checks thing.
All I said is that I wouldn't mind if they did that, not that it should happen...
-
My ultra far right uncle in law says that people should give obama a choice; If he continues to destroy the 2nd amendment and try to disarm the American public we kill his "Old lady and kids" as a means of threat.
Pls halp.
-
My ultra far right uncle in law says that people should give obama a choice; If he continues to destroy the 2nd amendment and try to disarm the American public we kill his "Old lady and kids" as a means of threat.
Pls halp.
'OBAMA AINT TAKIN' MAH GUNS!!! YEEEE HAWWWW!!!!'
-
3rd. The right to bare arms was made when guns took minutes to reload one round. As guns have changed (for better and worse) so should regulations.
This is the correct thing, just amend the amendment to say no-one can have guns, you changed it before so many time why do you all get hung up and up in arms (Pun intended laugh please) on that part, you kooky Americans and your guns
Like its a Amendment put something nice in like every third Sunday is ice cream day, that why you only get mass brain freeze not shootings.
TLDR: its a amendment, amend your gun problem.
-
I'm pro gun rights, and pro gun control. I'd say i'm more of a hobbyist, though it is nice to have a firearm for protection. I'm working on getting my first handgun that is suitable for concealed carry, but to be honest i'm glad loopholes like this are being closed, i dont mind going through a little extra paperwork if it really does mean that less individuals that are not in a position to own firearms can get there hands on them.
But that's my opinion and i dont hate on anyone with anti gun or anti gun control views, but personally i stand more in the middle on my views.
But what i cant stand is the " guns are only for killing " mindset, to me it is a tool, arguably a multipurpose tool, i'm sure if i was intent on killing someone my Func KB 460 with its 1/4 in steel top plate could easily help me do so ( As proved by linus of linus tech tips in one of the advert's they did for Func)
-
I'm pro gun rights, and pro gun control. I'd say i'm more of a hobbyist, though it is nice to have a firearm for protection. I'm working on getting my first handgun that is suitable for concealed carry, but to be honest i'm glad loopholes like this are being closed, i dont mind going through a little extra paperwork if it really does mean that less individuals that are not in a position to own firearms can get there hands on them.
But that's my opinion and i dont hate on anyone with anti gun or anti gun control views, but personally i stand more in the middle on my views.
But what i cant stand is the " guns are only for killing " mindset, to me it is a tool, arguably a multipurpose tool, i'm sure if i was intent on killing someone my Func KB 460 with its 1/4 in steel top plate could easily help me do so ( As proved by linus of linus tech tips in one of the advert's they did for Func)
Ok, I'm going to pick on a couple of your statements here (but not on you, promise ;) )
Let's start backwards:
RE: Guns are tools - Guns have three uses: 1) recreation, 2) threat of violence (defensive and offensive), and 3) Attempting to or killing living things (hunting animals or people). None of those is really a tool; the first has no practical purpose, and the next two operate on the same principle: guns are made to put holes in squishy things that should not have them.
And I doubt you could massacre a half dozen people from several hundred yards with your Func...
RE: Protection - The only reason you want a gun for protection is because there are so many other guns out there. So, yeah there's kinda another solution that doesn't involve having yet another gun out there (not to mention that many home gun fatalities involve the gun that's already in the house).
RE: Conceal Carry - This is something that legitimately chaps my hide. There is exactly zero reason non-law enforcement personnel should be allowed to be packing heat in public. Nearly every situation you can cook up involves another gun (see above) or the carrier simply making the situation worse due to a lack of training.
/me takes a deep breath
-
Hard not to look at it this way:
-
I'm anti gun
FTFY
-
True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!
So inflammatory! This is not how you argue with a person.
...but in case you don't know, "murder" means the killing of a human by another human, not just any living thing. Like if you died from a bacterial infection (or maybe a tiger), you wouldn't say that the bacteria murdered you, and vice versa.
-
On a couple occasions in my life, I have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While no longer an active duty member of the military, nor an active law enforcement officer, I consider the oath I swore to remain in effect, for the entirety of my life.
I support the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, equally. The purpose of the Amendment, as written by the Founders, was to ensure an armed populace, ready to defend themselves against both foreign aggressors, as well as from the possibility of a tyrannical government in the future.
Mr. Obama continues to eschew the Constitution, rather than defend it, at every opportunity. The edict the issued forth this morning does nothing to increase safety. It was but theater, designed to make his legacy appear more substantial to future generations, while actually accomplishing nothing.
-
I'm anti gun
FTFY
And this is the problem, if you're not for everyone being able to carry their handgun into their daughters soccer game you're anti-gun.
-
I'm anti gun
FTFY
And this is the problem, if you're not for everyone being able to carry their handgun into their daughters soccer game you're anti-gun.
No need to convince me, I already picked my side :).
-
I'm anti gun
FTFY
And this is the problem, if you're not for everyone being able to carry their handgun into their daughters soccer game you're anti-gun.
No need to convince me, I already picked my side :).
I view this as a nuanced issue. It doesn't have to be "no guns anywhere" or "arm your children on their way to preschool."
And the NRA and the hardcore anti-gun nuts make it so there is no chance for discourse. Instead of facts there are emotions, instead of reason fear mongering.
-
I, too, swore an oath when I was an employee of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Second Amendment says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
and I believe that the first clause is at least as important as the second clause. Ignorant 18-year-old rednecks walking around in the local Target store carrying loaded assault weapons (it has happened near my house more than once) is hardly what I would describe as a "well regulated militia".
I have little respect for people who denigrate (not a pun) a successful 2-term commander-in-chief simply because their opinion differs from his, when the population in general is approximately evenly divided (and even that is a bit of a stretch):
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm)
Unlike other recent endeavors:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/not-worth-it-huge-majority-regret-iraq-war-exclusive-poll-n139686 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/not-worth-it-huge-majority-regret-iraq-war-exclusive-poll-n139686)
Automobiles and their operation are carefully regulated to ensure public safety, as are many other activities.
-
I'm anti gun
FTFY
And this is the problem, if you're not for everyone being able to carry their handgun into their daughters soccer game you're anti-gun.
No need to convince me, I already picked my side :).
I view this as a nuanced issue. It doesn't have to be "no guns anywhere" or "arm your children on their way to preschool."
And the NRA and the hardcore anti-gun nuts make it so there is no chance for discourse. Instead of facts there are emotions, instead of reason fear mongering.
I "fear-monger" every time I go to a Walmart..
-
I'm anti gun
FTFY
And this is the problem, if you're not for everyone being able to carry their handgun into their daughters soccer game you're anti-gun.
No need to convince me, I already picked my side :).
I view this as a nuanced issue. It doesn't have to be "no guns anywhere" or "arm your children on their way to preschool."
And the NRA and the hardcore anti-gun nuts make it so there is no chance for discourse. Instead of facts there are emotions, instead of reason fear mongering.
I "fear-monger" every time I go to a Walmart..
Well I suppose this conversation has made about as much sense as most gun debates do...
-
I'm pro gun rights, and pro gun control. I'd say i'm more of a hobbyist, though it is nice to have a firearm for protection. I'm working on getting my first handgun that is suitable for concealed carry, but to be honest i'm glad loopholes like this are being closed, i dont mind going through a little extra paperwork if it really does mean that less individuals that are not in a position to own firearms can get there hands on them.
But that's my opinion and i dont hate on anyone with anti gun or anti gun control views, but personally i stand more in the middle on my views.
But what i cant stand is the " guns are only for killing " mindset, to me it is a tool, arguably a multipurpose tool, i'm sure if i was intent on killing someone my Func KB 460 with its 1/4 in steel top plate could easily help me do so ( As proved by linus of linus tech tips in one of the advert's they did for Func)
Ok, I'm going to pick on a couple of your statements here (but not on you, promise ;) )
Let's start backwards:
RE: Guns are tools - Guns have three uses: 1) recreation, 2) threat of violence (defensive and offensive), and 3) Attempting to or killing living things (hunting animals or people). None of those is really a tool; the first has no practical purpose, and the next two operate on the same principle: guns are made to put holes in squishy things that should not have them.
And I doubt you could massacre a half dozen people from several hundred yards with your Func...
RE: Protection - The only reason you want a gun for protection is because there are so many other guns out there. So, yeah there's kinda another solution that doesn't involve having yet another gun out there (not to mention that many home gun fatalities involve the gun that's already in the house).
RE: Conceal Carry - This is something that legitimately chaps my hide. There is exactly zero reason non-law enforcement personnel should be allowed to be packing heat in public. Nearly every situation you can cook up involves another gun (see above) or the carrier simply making the situation worse due to a lack of training.
/me takes a deep breath
No offence taken by me :p, everyone has there own opinion and you make good point's. But.
1.) The definition of tool is a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.
whether it be recreational or not putting a hole into a target is a function. And for a more practical example would be hunting ( though i hate much it's used fro anti gun control examples) Maybe some people can go and hunt with there bare hands, or things like knives or bows, a gun is a tool used to make hunting easier.
And no individual is going to massacre half a dozen people from several hundred yards away with even a long range Correctly termed assault rifle unless there in the top special forces kind of league.
2.) Even with more gun control or a complete gun ban, there is still going to be unregistered firearm's in circulation indefinitely, so yes, i want to be able to have a gun because it's most likely that if someone is going to break into my home it is going to be the type of criminal that disregards gun laws. And for in home involved shootings guns need to be properly secured.
3.) As for lack of training, most gun enthusiasts have had proper training for concealed carry, and personally i think to get your concealed carry permit it should be required, and again as i said if there are going to be other's illegally carrying regardless of gun laws, i want the ability to carry legally with the proper training. Personally i am going through classes for self defense regarding concealed carry, at least in my area most instructors are either current or retired law- enforcement. My reason for getting a concealed carry permit is not to be able to carry everywhere, acctually i dont really ever tend to use it. But i want the ability to if i ever see a situation where i see fit to, or on the off chance i have a job that requires it.
ry
-
I am in Australia where assault weapons were banned many years ago and since, massacres (there have been none since) and suicide rate has dropped significantly.
Yet it is still easy to own a gun. You can get your gun licence when you are 14 and shoot, shotguns, rifles and pistols. You just pay a 100 dollars or so, go to the safety course, do the theory course and then you can freely buy a gun as you wish. We own a variety of different guns and one of my friends who is a roo shooter (i.e. he shoots kangaroos, cuts off the limbs, bleeds and guts them and sells the meat to other countries) owns upwards of 60 guns ranging from air rifles to .45 buffalo gun to BAR rifle, to an elephant gun. He has a standard licence. Its just like getting a drivers licence and I think the law in america that any citizen is allowed to bear arms is fine, and its pretty much the same over here, but you just have to be qualified and not a risk to society.
If you sell someone a car you have to do all the required paper work. What is the difference with a gun? Its a weapon. I am completely pro guns and hunt quite a bit on our cattle station, don't get me wrong.
On another note, maybe it is best to let people have guns, survival of the fittest and all.
Jim Jefferies makes a good point
-
Can we please stop using the term "assault weapon"? It is nothing but a made up term for scary looking guns. Now assault rifle, that has an actual definition. Though, anything that qualifies for that, is fully automatic. Now, technically, there are ways to legally own them in some states. However, I want to point out that there have only been two violent crimes ever committed with a LEGALLY owned fully automatic rifle. Both of these crimes were committed by cops back in the '20s or so. I don't remember details of one, but the other was a cop that came home with his police issued "Tommy Gun" and found his wife sleeping with another man.
Also, there is no "gun show loop hole". Any business that sells anything that requires background check or paperwork is legally obligated to hold up to these standards, just the same as they would at a brick and mortar store. What people think is the loop hole, is that in some states, there is no legal obligation to preform a background check, waiting period, or any paperwork for gun sales from a private owner to a private owner, so long as the sale takes place in the buyers home state. If the buyer lives in a different state, there is paperwork required for crossing state lines, etc.
Now I am a gun owner, have been raised around guns, been shooting since I was 9 or 10, participated in my high schools trap shoot team, and have kids in the house. Though, none of my guns are technically locked, but they are in a locker in the back room of the garage where my kids do not have access to. My kids are 7 and 4. Hell a couple of them are my kids guns they won from Ducks Unlimited banquet dinners from the Green Wings. Both my kids and my niece and nephew are legacy Green Wings.
Now I do agree with background checks, the waiting period doesn't bother me, and I feel that anyone who can own a gun should be able to carry in public, provided they at least take a safety course, competency test, and a course specifically dealing with the legal ramifications of open and concealed carry.
-
Can we please stop using the term "assault weapon"? It is nothing but a made up term for scary looking guns. Now assault rifle, that has an actual definition. Though, anything that qualifies for that, is fully automatic. Now, technically, there are ways to legally own them in some states. However, I want to point out that there have only been two violent crimes ever committed with a LEGALLY owned fully automatic rifle. Both of these crimes were committed by cops back in the '20s or so. I don't remember details of one, but the other was a cop that came home with his police issued "Tommy Gun" and found his wife sleeping with another man.
Also, there is no "gun show loop hole". Any business that sells anything that requires background check or paperwork is legally obligated to hold up to these standards, just the same as they would at a brick and mortar store. What people think is the loop hole, is that in some states, there is no legal obligation to preform a background check, waiting period, or any paperwork for gun sales from a private owner to a private owner, so long as the sale takes place in the buyers home state. If the buyer lives in a different state, there is paperwork required for crossing state lines, etc.
Now I am a gun owner, have been raised around guns, been shooting since I was 9 or 10, participated in my high schools trap shoot team, and have kids in the house. Though, none of my guns are technically locked, but they are in a locker in the back room of the garage where my kids do not have access to. My kids are 7 and 4. Hell a couple of them are my kids guns they won from Ducks Unlimited banquet dinners from the Green Wings. Both my kids and my niece and nephew are legacy Green Wings.
Now I do agree with background checks, the waiting period doesn't bother me, and I feel that anyone who can own a gun should be able to carry in public, provided they at least take a safety course, competency test, and a course specifically dealing with the legal ramifications of open and concealed carry.
Pretty much exactly how i feel about it
-
Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50. That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask.
$25/50 is a pittance to spend on a tool whose job is literally killing people.
It would be awesome if guns had an extra tax of $1,000, and bullets cost $50 each. (Obviously this is not politically feasible, and I’m not suggesting it as a serious proposal.)
This whole “gun right” thing is historically revisionist bull****. Nobody paid any attention to the second amendment one way or the other and courts interpreted it to mean that the Federal government couldn’t disband official state militias until the late 20th/early 21st century, when a small group of activists figured out they could reinterpret it to give their political agenda (unlimited gun sales) the imprimatur of legal legitimacy. In 2001 they won in circuit court and in 2008 (DC v. Heller) they finally got an activist right wing Supreme Court – Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts/Kennedy) to decide for them 5–4. I can only hope that a more originalist/textualist, conservative court will reverse this ruling in the future, once Hillary Clinton or whoever has had a chance to appoint a few replacements.
But if you look at the text, the key words are “well regulated militia”, which was about having some kind of citizen military not under direct Federal control in the era before a standing army. Even if you want to interpret this as citizens in general owning guns, the ”well regulated militia” part can obviously and easily be read to require extensive training, licensing, strict regulation of guns not useful for the purposes of the militia, tracking across borders, etc., or even required participation in a regulated organization. Not: every untrained grandmother and teenager gets an uzi and should carry it to school and church!
Moreover, the “arms” under discussion in the 18th century were front-loaded muskets. It would be awesome if all guns took 30 seconds to load and had horrible accuracy. It would make accidental deaths a hell of a lot harder. (Also not feasible, and not a serious proposal.)
In any event, beyond the tragedy of rampant murder, gun suicide, police shootings, and accidental shootings in the US, the even bigger tragedy is that a handful of US companies are the biggest suppliers of the international small arms trade, which basically amounts to selling murder tools to untrained child soldiers, to be used in large part for killing civilians. Shameful. (Swiss and other European companies also on the hook here.)
-
Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50. That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask.
$25/50 is a pittance to spend on a tool whose job is literally killing people.
It would be awesome if guns had an extra tax of $1,000, and bullets cost $50 each.
This whole “gun right” thing is historically revisionist bull****. Nobody paid any attention to the second amendment one way or the other until the late 20th century, when a small group of activists figured out they could reinterpret it to give their political agenda the imprimatur of legal legitimacy. But if you look at the text, the key words are “well regulated militia”, which was about having some kind of citizen military in the era before a standing army. Even if you want to interpret this as citizens in general owning guns, the ”well regulated militia” part can obviously and easily be read to require extensive training, licensing, strict regulation of guns not useful for the purposes of the militia, tracking across borders, etc., or even required participation in a regulated organization. Not: every untrained grandmother and teenager gets an uzi and should carry it to school and church!
Moreover, the “arms” under discussion in the 18th century were front-loaded muskets. It would be awesome if all guns took 30 seconds to load and had horrible accuracy. It would make accidental deaths a hell of a lot harder.
In any event, beyond the tragedy of rampant murder, gun suicide, police shootings, and accidental shootings in the US, the even bigger tragedy is that a handful of US companies are the biggest suppliers of the international small arms trade, which basically amounts to selling murder tools to untrained child soldiers, to be used in large part for killing civilians. Shameful. (Swiss and other European companies also on the hook here.)
I respect different opinions and anti gun opinions. But this honestly almost looks like an argument that would be on a facebook/ youtube comment thread with no critical thinking and only emotion involved.
-
There should absolutely be emotion involved. Gun violence is one of the leading causes of death in the US, unlike in any other developed country, and many of the victims are innocent children. Pro-gun activists in Congress have blocked any systematic study from being done related to gun violence, because if you did a study the results would be obvious: less guns and stricter gun access controls leads to dramatically reduced murder/suicide/accidental shooting rates, not to mention better relationships between citizens and police, an overall reduction in violence and crime, etc. Just look to Australia for a shining example. Our current gun laws are senseless brutality, and I consider the pro-gun activism in this country accessory to all these deaths.
I love America, but guns and cars (as in, organizing the whole society around cars, zoning laws which force car use, cities which are crazy unsafe for pedestrians/cyclists, etc.) are basically the #1 and #2 worst things about it. Two amazingly efficient killing machines. At least cars have a non-deadly primary purpose.
-
There should absolutely be emotion involved. Gun violence is one of the leading causes of death in the US, unlike in any other developed country, and many of the victims are innocent children. Pro-gun activists in Congress have blocked any systematic study from being done related to gun violence, because if you did a study the results would be obvious: less guns and stricter gun access controls leads to dramatically reduced murder/suicide/accidental shooting rates. Just look to Australia for a shining example. Our current gun laws are senseless brutality, and I consider the pro-gun activism in this country accessory to all these deaths.
I love America, but guns and cars (as in, organizing the whole society around cars, zoning laws which force car use, cities which are crazy unsafe for pedestrians/cyclists, etc.) are basically the #1 and #2 worst things about it. Two amazingly efficient killing machines. At least cars have a non-deadly primary purpose.
You can find countries to use as examples for all combinations of high and low gun control with high and low crime rates. Your example is invalid
Making it harder to buy guns to reduce gun crime is like trying to make it harder to buy a car to fight drunk drivers. What this country needs is stricter punishments for crimes to the point where people are actually afraid to get caught.
-
Making it harder to buy guns to reduce gun crime is like trying to make it harder to buy a car to fight drunk drivers. What this country needs is stricter punishments for crimes to the point where people are actually afraid to get caught.
If the crime here is carrying a gun in a public place, or owning a gun without extensive licensing with required training, then I’m all over this. Let’s snatch every person carrying a gun in public and throw them somewhere that they can’t hurt anyone but themselves for a few months.
If crime here means drug possession or petty theft or whatever, then you’re crazy. Our punishments for most crimes are way beyond absurd as it is. Our prison population ranks us with totalitarian dictatorships and failed states.
-
Making it harder to buy guns to reduce gun crime is like trying to make it harder to buy a car to fight drunk drivers. What this country needs is stricter punishments for crimes to the point where people are actually afraid to get caught.
If the crime here is carrying a gun in a public place, or owning a gun without extensive licensing with required training, then I’m all over this. Let’s snatch every person carrying a gun in public and throw them somewhere that they can’t hurt anyone but themselves for a few months.
If crime here means drug possession or petty theft or whatever, then you’re crazy. Our punishments for most crimes are way beyond absurd as it is. Our prison population ranks us with totalitarian dictatorships and failed states.
Punishments for crimes in this country are a ****ing joke. Provided you are a legal gun owner, and have all paperwork in order, how is carrying a gun a crime?
-
What crimes are you talking about Melvang? Tax evasion? Wire fraud? Racketeering? Illegal harassment during loan collections? Insider trading? Bribery? Illegal police or NSA wiretaps? High officials ordering war crimes? Cops shooting children holding toy guns?
I agree that punishments are a sick joke. The death penalty should be abolished, and life imprisonment should be reserved for the worst offenders. Our public defenders and legal system should be sufficiently funded and restructured to avoid so much reliance on plea bargains, to prevent so many innocent people from going to prison. Ex-felons who have served their time should not be stripped of the right to vote, nor should they be prevented from finding some kind of employment. Prisons conditions should be improved, with a crackdown on abuse by prisoners and guards alike, should be made public (instead of for-profit private contractors) and should do a better job of rehabilitating offenders. In general sentences should be lightened and prisoners should be treated with dignity and respect, so that they’ll have a chance to reenter society as functioning adults instead of being forced back into a life of organized crime.
-
Making it harder to buy guns to reduce gun crime is like trying to make it harder to buy a car to fight drunk drivers. What this country needs is stricter punishments for crimes to the point where people are actually afraid to get caught.
If the crime here is carrying a gun in a public place, or owning a gun without extensive licensing with required training, then I’m all over this. Let’s snatch every person carrying a gun in public and throw them somewhere that they can’t hurt anyone but themselves for a few months.
If crime here means drug possession or petty theft or whatever, then you’re crazy. Our punishments for most crimes are way beyond absurd as it is. Our prison population ranks us with totalitarian dictatorships and failed states.
From what i've been involved with and have seen personally, drugs have a much more destructive impact then gun's ever have. I've lost a very significant amount of close family members related to drug's and drug related crimes. And none to any kind of gun related accident/crime despite being around guns most of my life. So why should current punishments be considered absurd ?
The war on drugs is great example of what happens when you try to too heavily restrict something. Laws are not going to fix a supply and demand issue.
-
Plz demik explain how I'm the only stupid one here lmao
-
From Federalist 46:
"a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. "
Apparently there were 3.6 million people in the states in 1788, so a seventh of the population. Today one in three own a gun. A trained and organized seventh is surely far more dangerous to the federal government than a haphazard third, so the people are currently at a ginormous disadvantage vs the feds compared to the system outlined by Madison here. Food for thought. I don't care to research any more this late in the night. Maybe tomorrow. Also, maybe tomorrow I'll realize none of what I've written here makes any sense.
-
I think the core problem is that what makes sense in the middle of nowhere in rural Wyoming or whatever doesn’t make any sense in the middle of Washington, D.C. or another big city with a gang violence problem, and vice versa, but people are too caught up in their own experience to consider what the different set of problems is.
I have no problem with some dude on a ranch somewhere 50 miles from anyone shooting whatever he wants to on his own property (though for the sake of his children I hope it’s locked up most of the time), as long as his gun stays there, and doesn’t get waved around in public places.
In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?
-
Plz demik explain how I'm the only stupid one here lmao
Plz demik explain how I'm the only stupid one here lmao
Plz demik explain how I'm the only stupid one here lmao
-
In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?
Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones". All of them.
[attach=1]
-
In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?
Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones". All of them.
(Attachment Link)
#1 greatest argument ever
-
In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?
Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones". All of them.
Except the 2011 Tucson shooting, didn't that occur in a non gun free zone? But I think this is the exception and all the rest did occur in gun free zones.
-
In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?
Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones". All of them.
Except the 2011 Tucson shooting, didn't that occur in a non gun free zone? But I think this is the exception and all the rest did occur in gun free zones.
I think the acctual number is something like 92% of all mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones.
-
In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?
Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones". All of them.
Except the 2011 Tucson shooting, didn't that occur in a non gun free zone? But I think this is the exception and all the rest did occur in gun free zones.
I think the acctual number is something like 92% of all mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones.
Would that be between 2009 and 2014?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/11/report-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/
-
In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?
Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones". All of them.
Except the 2011 Tucson shooting, didn't that occur in a non gun free zone? But I think this is the exception and all the rest did occur in gun free zones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
This happened in front of a grocery store up the street from my old place. That whole thing was so damn annoying and that date is coming up again which is already annoying the hell out of me.
I've been exposed to guns in both positive and very negative ways and I still feel no need to support any new laws restricting, regulating, or banning.
-
I remember being in the US some years ago, and I wanted to buy some camping equipment in a shop. Behind the desk there were big weapons on the wall, and I had to wait because a guy in front of me wanted to buy an assault rifle. It took quite a while, but it was funny to watch. For an European an interesting experience!
-
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.
Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.
-
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.
Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.
How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)
And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao
-
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.
Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.
How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)
And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao
It is a valid argument because it shows the difference between an idealistic and a realistic point of view. Realistically, one could pass as many gun control measures as felt necessary, but that will not stop gun violence. The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is either, their own stupidity, or a good guy with a gun.
Also, the fact that mass murders happen in GFZs means nothing about the quality of our peace officers, all it means is that mass murders don't give one **** about GFZs or gun laws.
-
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.
Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.
How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)
And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao
The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is either, their own stupidity, or a good guy with a gun.
what about a net?
-
what about a net?
-
Partitioning off areas is pretty silly.
Rules rarely work unless they are consistent and unequivocal. That is why we are at loggerheads here, like so many other areas in our society: there are people who advocate "carry everywhere" (like here in Georgia) and people who want no guns in public, period, concealed or otherwise.
Personally, I primarily object to the complete ignoring of the "well regulated militia" portion of the principle, as it had been consistently interpreted until about the Reagan era.
-
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.
Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.
How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)
And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao
It is a valid argument because it shows the difference between an idealistic and a realistic point of view. Realistically, one could pass as many gun control measures as felt necessary, but that will not stop gun violence. The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is either, their own stupidity, or a good guy with a gun.
Also, the fact that mass murders happen in GFZs means nothing about the quality of our peace officers, all it means is that mass murders don't give one **** about GFZs or gun laws.
Don't you stop gun violence, by having no guns?
What statistics prove that America is safer than any European country that has strict gun control? From an outsiders POV simply increasing the places allowing guns (like schools/churches/cinemas) on the basis of required protection only makes a seemingly paranoid society, more paranoid and how can that be healthy?
By seemingly wanting to make guns required for personal safety, what do holiday makers do? Are they not allowed to defend themselves, or are they allowed knifes?
-
Personally, I primarily object to the complete ignoring of the "well regulated militia" portion of the principle, as it had been consistently interpreted until about the Reagan era.
This article explains it pretty well, in regard to the Framers' original intent of the Amendment: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
-
Don't you stop gun violence, by having no guns?
This goes into my hate for the Second Amendment. It's starts the debate at "everyone should be allowed access to a gun." Which leads to the positive feedback cycle of "bad guy has gun, so I need a gun," which increases the demand, which decreases the cost, which (you guessed it) makes them more accessible.
It's good 'ole gambler's logic: "I'll just keep doubling down until I win my way out of debt."
-
Don't you stop gun violence, by having no guns?
This goes into my hate for the Second Amendment. It's starts the debate at "everyone should be allowed access to a gun." Which leads to the positive feedback cycle of "bad guy has gun, so I need a gun," which increases the demand, which decreases the cost, which (you guessed it) makes them more accessible.
It's good 'ole gambler's logic: "I'll just keep doubling down until I win my way out of debt."
I don't understand two things that you've said recently. Maybe you can help me out.
1. Why does it make you afraid to have armed citizens in your midst? Are you afraid you will get shot? Most of them only want to protect themselves from violence, if that scenario should arise, and incidentally protect others around them. Which would mean you. If you live in a jurisdiction where concealed carry is permitted, you probably have armed license holders in your midst all the time, and don't even know it. Presumably, they have been trained, and have taken a short course in the laws regarding use of lethal force, and background checks have been accomplished.
2. How can a person hate an Amendment to the Constitution? Especially one from the first ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. That would be like me saying I hate the Sixth Amendment, for some reason. You love the First Amendment but hate the Second? They are all important, to me.
-
Lives in California.
Owns guns.
Doesn't see what the big commotion is.
*cackles maniacally*
-
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.
Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.
How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)
And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao
It is a valid argument because it shows the difference between an idealistic and a realistic point of view. Realistically, one could pass as many gun control measures as felt necessary, but that will not stop gun violence. The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is either, their own stupidity, or a good guy with a gun.
Also, the fact that mass murders happen in GFZs means nothing about the quality of our peace officers, all it means is that mass murders don't give one **** about GFZs or gun laws.
Don't you stop gun violence, by having no guns?
What statistics prove that America is safer than any European country that has strict gun control? From an outsiders POV simply increasing the places allowing guns (like schools/churches/cinemas) on the basis of required protection only makes a seemingly paranoid society, more paranoid and how can that be healthy?
By seemingly wanting to make guns required for personal safety, what do holiday makers do? Are they not allowed to defend themselves, or are they allowed knifes?
What other countries do or have done for gun control is irrelevant because we are a completely different population and mindset.
On the stastics, I don't have the bandwidth right now, but I will say this. Hondorus has some of the strictest gun control in the world and has the highest per capita murder rate. By contrast Switzerland essentially requires every household to own a gun. They have the lowest per capita murder rate.
-
I don't understand two things that you've said recently. Maybe you can help me out.
1. Why does it make you afraid to have armed citizens in your midst? Are you afraid you will get shot? Most of them only want to protect themselves from violence, if that scenario should arise, and incidentally protect others around them. Which would mean you. If you live in a jurisdiction where concealed carry is permitted, you probably have armed license holders in your midst all the time, and don't even know it. Presumably, they have been trained, and have taken a short course in the laws regarding use of lethal force, and background checks have been accomplished.
I'm not "afraid" in the sense of physically being worried on a daily basis, I'm much more worried about, say, drunk drivers than I am about people with guns. My argument is actually pretty simple, and that is that the "training" that people are required to take in nearly all states is wholly insufficient. Utah has one of the more accepted programs for concealed carry that is recognized in many states, they require: $50, background check, 10-card + photo, and a "Weapon Familiarity Certification." Somehow that means that they're "trained" to carry a concealed weapon in public.
All I have to do is look at police officers and how wrong they get the use of lethal force (and they get quite a bit more training) to prove to me that Joe Six-Pack with a hero complex and a 9mm strapped to his side isn't really making me safer.
2. How can a person hate an Amendment to the Constitution? Especially one from the first ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. That would be like me saying I hate the Sixth Amendment, for some reason. You love the First Amendment but hate the Second? They are all important, to me.
I don't view the Constitution as an all or nothing thing. It's a document that was written hundreds of years ago by people with much different lives than we have now. These people owned slaves and thought that was a totally swell arrangement! To think that they had some kind of unerring insight into the future seems pretty crazy to me.
There are certainly some swell ideas in the Constitution and its Amendments, but lest we all forget about the whole 18th and 21st Amendment, things can and do change...
-
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.
Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.
How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)
And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao
It is a valid argument because it shows the difference between an idealistic and a realistic point of view. Realistically, one could pass as many gun control measures as felt necessary, but that will not stop gun violence. The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is either, their own stupidity, or a good guy with a gun.
Also, the fact that mass murders happen in GFZs means nothing about the quality of our peace officers, all it means is that mass murders don't give one **** about GFZs or gun laws.
Don't you stop gun violence, by having no guns?
What statistics prove that America is safer than any European country that has strict gun control? From an outsiders POV simply increasing the places allowing guns (like schools/churches/cinemas) on the basis of required protection only makes a seemingly paranoid society, more paranoid and how can that be healthy?
By seemingly wanting to make guns required for personal safety, what do holiday makers do? Are they not allowed to defend themselves, or are they allowed knifes?
What other countries do or have done for gun control is irrelevant because we are a completely different population and mindset.
On the stastics, I don't have the bandwidth right now, but I will say this. Hondorus has some of the strictest gun control in the world and has the highest per capita murder rate. By contrast Switzerland essentially requires every household to own a gun. They have the lowest per capita murder rate.
Well according to your first sentence your second paragraph is meaningless, but neither the less....
In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the US.
And Honduras is in Central/South America... and they don't have particularly strict gun laws by the looks of things... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Honduras)
-
I don't understand two things that you've said recently. Maybe you can help me out.
1. Why does it make you afraid to have armed citizens in your midst? Are you afraid you will get shot? Most of them only want to protect themselves from violence, if that scenario should arise, and incidentally protect others around them. Which would mean you. If you live in a jurisdiction where concealed carry is permitted, you probably have armed license holders in your midst all the time, and don't even know it. Presumably, they have been trained, and have taken a short course in the laws regarding use of lethal force, and background checks have been accomplished.
I'm not "afraid" in the sense of physically being worried on a daily basis, I'm much more worried about, say, drunk drivers than I am about people with guns. My argument is actually pretty simple, and that is that the "training" that people are required to take in nearly all states is wholly insufficient. Utah has one of the more accepted programs for concealed carry that is recognized in many states, they require: $50, background check, 10-card + photo, and a "Weapon Familiarity Certification." Somehow that means that they're "trained" to carry a concealed weapon in public.
All I have to do is look at police officers and how wrong they get the use of lethal force (and they get quite a bit more training) to prove to me that Joe Six-Pack with a hero complex and a 9mm strapped to his side isn't really making me safer.
2. How can a person hate an Amendment to the Constitution? Especially one from the first ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. That would be like me saying I hate the Sixth Amendment, for some reason. You love the First Amendment but hate the Second? They are all important, to me.
I don't view the Constitution as an all or nothing thing. It's a document that was written hundreds of years ago by people with much different lives than we have now. These people owned slaves and thought that was a totally swell arrangement! To think that they had some kind of unerring insight into the future seems pretty crazy to me.
There are certainly some swell ideas in the Constitution and its Amendments, but lest we all forget about the whole 18th and 21st Amendment, things can and do change...
Thanks for your explanation!
-
The thought of a random person carrying a gun in a hostile situation scares the **** out of me. Why? Because very, very few people who carry have been trained to deal with situations like that appropriately. With the exception of military and police members, who have the appropriate training drilled into them over and over to the point that their reactions are almost involuntary, the majority of civilians would not react properly in a situation with a shooter and IMO would probably cause more harm than good.
The chance of additional harm increases in the event of multiple people having firearms in a shooter situation, because they most likely have very limited knowledge of what is going on and could very possibly engage and take down another civilian who might be trying to stop the shooter(s) themselves. I know a lot of gun owners like to think that they would be able to handle the situation properly and I applaud their tenacity in that regard, but I doubt the vast majority of those people have been in a high adrenaline situation before so I am much more skeptical of their abilities.
I do want to point out that I personally have no problems with guns or people owning guns, as I was raised around them and own one myself. My issue is that a lot of gun owners seem to think that because they go to the range a couple times a year, shoot skeet with their buddies, and go hunting during deer season that they now are able to take down a shooter in a hostile and/or hostage situation, which is incorrect.
-
1. Why does it make you afraid to have armed citizens in your midst? Are you afraid you will get shot?
Yes. I am afraid of people with easy means to kill, either accidentally or on a whim.
People’s mental stability hangs on a thread, and even apparently well adjusted people can go off the deep end in a flash. I saw a woman try to tackle a guy in a grocery store who was helping her child who had fallen down and scraped a knee. I’ve heard plenty of men screaming at each-other in the street and being held back from brawling by their buddies. I saw a drunk guy get sucker punched by another drunk guy he was walking next to for no apparent reason... turned out they had been insulting each-other’s mothers and the first guy thought it went too far. I once dated a girl for a few weeks who seemed completely normal most of the time, but when she started feeling anxious would turn completely nuts in a flash. She would make threats, swing punches, start throwing things, ... needless to say I didn’t stick around for more.
I have absolutely no faith in people’s ability to restrain their emotions just because they happen to be carrying a reliable instant murder machine.
Look at the case of the kid with the toy gun shot dead by a Cleveland cop a year ago November. If supposedly highly trained cops will make this kind of tragic mistake, why do you think barely-trained citizens would be able to “protect” us all.
http://youtu.be/MCI4bUk4vuM (http://youtu.be/MCI4bUk4vuM)
-
1. Why does it make you afraid to have armed citizens in your midst? Are you afraid you will get shot?
Yes. I am afraid of people with easy means to kill, either accidentally or on a whim.
I have absolutely no faith in people’s ability to restrain their emotions just because they happen to be carrying a reliable instant murder machine.
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
-
Hondorus has some of the strictest gun control in the world and has the highest per capita murder rate.
Honduras is in the middle of a huge drug traffic route, was basically a slave society of indigenous peasants ruled by a small minority of Spaniards starting in ~1500, and then by American banana companies in the 20th century, was governed by various military juntas and fought in bloody wars with its neighbors (wars supported by the US) as well as in various guerrilla civil wars up through the early 1980s, during which time American arms companies flooded the place with handguns, is on its 12th constitution dating from 1982 which was amended a further 26 times in the 25 years after that, and most recently was taken over again by a military coup. The country was completely wrecked by a hurricane in 1998 and then again by massive flooding in 2008, and has a basically broken economy. Something like half the population is below the poverty line, and the unemployment rate is 30%.
As for gun control, according to Wikipedia, “Until June 2007, openly carrying a firearm in public as well carrying a concealed weapon was permitted but increased attention to deaths by firearm in the country led to further restrictions on the possession of firearms. Current law still makes the purchase, ownership, and possession of firearms legal and it describes the type of firearms permitted for civilian ownership.”
I’m really not sure why you think this is at all relevant to a conversation about the US, unless you’re trying to argue about how terrible US foreign policy toward Latin America was for the past 200 years, especially during the 1950s–1980s.
By contrast Switzerland essentially requires every household to own a gun. They have the lowest per capita murder rate.
By contrast, if you exclude little city-states, Switzerland is the third richest country by per capita income in the world, after Norway and UAE, which are both oil states, and the wealthiest in per capita assets. The unemployment rate and poverty rate are both extremely low. It has been basically independent and politically stable and relatively untouched by violence in the post-Napoleonic era.
It hands out guns to people during its compulsory military service, which includes something like a half year of strict training. Members of the military keep their guns at home, but don’t keep ammunition there. Acquiring ammunition in Switzerland requires ID, current gun license, address, and criminal history, and ammunition purchases are registered with the government. Swiss are only allowed to carry weapons in public if they have a permit, which generally requires working in a security-related job. Transporting a gun from place to place without such a permit requires that it be unloaded and carried without ammunition, and requires a valid purpose.
Again, nothing at all like the US. Overall, I’d feel much more comfortable if we had something similar to Swiss gun culture in the US. It seems dramatically saner.
If anyone tried to convert the US to Swiss gun laws, the NRA would throw a fit.
-
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.
-
Oh...the old "Gun Violence" argument again...as long as it's not done with a gun it doesn't count as violence...
There is no such thing as "gun violence"; just violence. That's the real problem that no one wants to address because it's an extremely complex and difficult to deal with. And since politicians like to be "perceived" as effectual rather than actually being effectual they like to pass laws. It's much easier than dealing with reality.
-
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.
I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)
Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.
-
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.
I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)
Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.
Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****
-
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.
I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)
Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.
Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****
Do you even read?
-
Also, as a TX CHL holder, you go through an extensive FBI and State background check, you have to know the law regarding CHL, and you are told that you can only use your weapon if you fear for your life (or someone else's.) If it's clear that you were not in mortal danger you will be prosecuted just as any other murder suspect.
It's not easy to get a gun in TX unless you are a law abiding citizen. They still do an FBI and State background check on all guns sold by stores...including gun shows. The only way a person can buy a gun in the US without going through a background check is if they buy from an individual.
-
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.
I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)
Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.
Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****
Do you even read?
Clearly not. I've been in situations where I was glad I was carrying, despite never drawing my weapon, and I totally understand where you're coming from.
-
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.
I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)
Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.
Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****
Do you even read?
Yeah I read it and it was terrifying lmao
Clearly not. I've been in situations where I was glad I was carrying, despite never drawing my weapon, and I totally understand where you're coming from.
ohh I see, disagree = not reading
:D
-
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.
I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)
Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.
Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****
Do you even read?
Yeah I read it and it was terrifying lmao
(http://memecrunch.com/meme/RVEL/i-don-t-believe-you/image.png?w=400&c=1)
-
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.
I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)
Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.
Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****
Do you even read?
Yeah I read it and it was terrifying lmao
Clearly not. I've been in situations where I was glad I was carrying, despite never drawing my weapon, and I totally understand where you're coming from.
ohh I see, disagree = not reading
:D
I think you're entitled to disagree, but you took what he said out of context, which is where the not reading comment came from. This entire debate is silly, just like pro choice/pro life, etc. Nobody is going to change their mind.
-
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.
I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)
Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.
The problem with this is that while a lot of level-headed people are going to feel that way, not everyone would. I have hung out with my (redneck) family on a couple occasions where the booze is flowing, someone starts an argument, and the argument escalates to the point of people pulling handguns out to "prove" how right their argument is. No shots were ever fired which is great, but that doesn't mean its not going to happen, and with people carrying anywhere they want (including bars) the chances of people getting hot-headed and resorting to their firearm to win the argument increases exponentially.
-
This is a serious question and I'm genuinely curious but why do some of you commenting from outside of the US give even half a **** about our laws on guns?
-
I think you're entitled to disagree, but you took what he said out of context, which is where the not reading comment came from. This entire debate is silly, just like pro choice/pro life, etc. Nobody is going to change their mind.
Oh don’t worry, they’ll change their mind once they see what kind of heat I’m packing. When there’s a gun pointed at your face, the other guy is always right.
-
The problem with this is that while a lot of level-headed people are going to feel that way, not everyone would. I have hung out with my (redneck) family on a couple occasions where the booze is flowing, someone starts an argument, and the argument escalates to the point of people pulling handguns out to "prove" how right their argument is. No shots were ever fired which is great, but that doesn't mean its not going to happen, and with people carrying anywhere they want (including bars) the chances of people getting hot-headed and resorting to their firearm to win the argument increases exponentially.
In Texas at least, being intoxicated while carrying a firearm is against the law. As is carrying a firearm into a bar (defined as any establishment which gets 51% or more of its business from alcohol sales).
-
I think you're entitled to disagree, but you took what he said out of context, which is where the not reading comment came from. This entire debate is silly, just like pro choice/pro life, etc. Nobody is going to change their mind.
Oh don’t worry, they’ll change their mind once they see what kind of heat I’m packing. When there’s a gun pointed at your face, the other guy is always right.
You just stated the argument FOR having an armed populace. Tyrants always disarm the populace first.
-
I think you're entitled to disagree, but you took what he said out of context, which is where the not reading comment came from. This entire debate is silly, just like pro choice/pro life, etc. Nobody is going to change their mind.
Oh don’t worry, they’ll change their mind once they see what kind of heat I’m packing. When there’s a gun pointed at your face, the other guy is always right.
You just stated the argument FOR having an armed populace. Tyrants always disarm the populace first.
Was just about to say this.
-
The problem with this is that while a lot of level-headed people are going to feel that way, not everyone would. I have hung out with my (redneck) family on a couple occasions where the booze is flowing, someone starts an argument, and the argument escalates to the point of people pulling handguns out to "prove" how right their argument is. No shots were ever fired which is great, but that doesn't mean its not going to happen, and with people carrying anywhere they want (including bars) the chances of people getting hot-headed and resorting to their firearm to win the argument increases exponentially.
In Texas at least, being intoxicated while carrying a firearm is against the law. As is carrying a firearm into a bar (defined as any establishment which gets 51% or more of its business from alcohol sales).
That isn't a gun problem, that is an attitude and anger problem.
-
So Melvang: any response to the Honduras/Switzerland thing? Or are you going to concede that I completely destroyed your argument and made you look silly?
-
This is a serious question and I'm genuinely curious but why do some of you commenting from outside of the US give even half a **** about our laws on guns?
Because I feel the need to stop you from hurting your selves, but serious time also then why will you not just change the Amendment its been done before what makes your right to bare arms so meaningful, in all honesty if what it was originally intended to do happened in this day and age you wouldn't stand a chance against taking out the government it just seems silly to everyone outside.
@JD
Firstly I want to see the Doctors note.
Secondly why could you not just walk away without having the gun on you at all, if I read correctly it implies the gun pacify your anger as you know you could kill someone with it, surely a sane person could just smile nod and walk away from something such as what you described.
Secondly your Texan "Law"? confuses me why would your governing body want people, civilians, becoming vigilantes when faced with a threat to their own person rather than letting people trained and paid to do so, I understand the part you need to be armed because they are also armed, but that whole part goes away if nether party is armed at worth you have a nut with a knife or a punchout, again I'm basing this on a heated exchange in the street not a home invasion but it seems very backwards to me, which neatly brings me to my final point what happens when a armed person enters your home with a loaded weapon, do you dash to get your own firearm? which is locked safely away in storage as should be or do you carry that around the home too? because lets face it if someone brakes into your home you are not going for the gun before getting shot first.
-
The problem with this is that while a lot of level-headed people are going to feel that way, not everyone would. I have hung out with my (redneck) family on a couple occasions where the booze is flowing, someone starts an argument, and the argument escalates to the point of people pulling handguns out to "prove" how right their argument is. No shots were ever fired which is great, but that doesn't mean its not going to happen, and with people carrying anywhere they want (including bars) the chances of people getting hot-headed and resorting to their firearm to win the argument increases exponentially.
I'm calling BS on that story. People don't routinely pull guns on each other to "symbolically" prove a point. That sounds like some bad anti-gun propaganda.
-
Secondly why could you not just walk away without having the gun on you at all, if I read correctly it implies the gun pacify your anger as you know you could kill someone with it, surely a sane person could just smile nod and walk away from something such as what you described.
This is basically me 90% of the time, since I can't carry in my job. But I do get angry at people and their stupidity at times. I just find I get angry less often when armed.
Secondly your Texan "Law"? confuses me why would your governing body want people, civilians, becoming vigilantes when faced with a threat to their own person rather than letting people trained and paid to do so, I understand the part you need to be armed because they are also armed, but that whole part goes away if nether party is armed at worth you have a nut with a knife or a punchout, again I'm basing this on a heated exchange in the street not a home invasion but it seems very backwards to me, which neatly brings me to my final point what happens when a armed person enters your home with a loaded weapon, do you dash to get your own firearm? which is locked safely away in storage as should be or do you carry that around the home too? because lets face it if someone brakes into your home you are not going for the gun before getting shot first.
Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
For home defense, I have a loaded shotgun in the closet (out of reach of my kid). The sound of a 12-gauge pump action being racked is usually enough to give any bad guy second thoughts about his life choices.
-
This is a serious question and I'm genuinely curious but why do some of you commenting from outside of the US give even half a **** about our laws on guns?
I don't really, you are (clearly) free to go about murdering each other and I have little to no desire to ever visit the US. I just find the mentally of needing to own a tool that's only job is to kill things hilarious and quite sad, especially when you feel the need to have to carry it around with you...
-
if nether party is armed at worth you have a nut with a knife or a punchout,
Right, because the only way people are murdered or seriously harmed is with guns. That's why there is almost no violence at all in the UK, no risk of being harmed ever, and therefore weapons are not necessary.
because lets face it if someone brakes into your home you are not going for the gun before getting shot first.
There are about 100,000 cases a year where people protect themselves with firearms in the US according to FBI stats. Those are only the ones that are reported.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
They really pound the anti-gun message in hard over there in the UK (damn all logic), but that type of over-controlling rule is why the US exists in the first place.
-
Secondly why could you not just walk away without having the gun on you at all, if I read correctly it implies the gun pacify your anger as you know you could kill someone with it, surely a sane person could just smile nod and walk away from something such as what you described.
Keep in mind, as a people, white Texan men believe the earth was formed 6000 years ago and don’t believe in evolution; think the best fix for teenage pregnancy is abstinence-only education, preventing people from getting contraceptives, and banning abortions in all cases; are proud to have improved their school test scores via a ballooning dropout rate; think that global climate change is an east coast conspiracy; have deeper relationships with their pickup trucks than with other humans; treat high school football as a religion; have one of the most regressive tax systems in the country with an effective tax rate of >12% of income for the poorest 20% of the population and only 3% of income for the top 1%, making up for lack of state income taxes with oil profits (oops: the state is now being bankrupted by low oil prices); are doing everything they can to prevent hispanics from voting, including new high-profile lawsuits arguing that we shouldn’t count children when drawing up legislative district boundaries; etc.
The white mayor of Dallas recently claimed to be “fearful of large gatherings of white men that come into schools, theaters and shoot people up”.
In such a context, I think there’s just such a pervasive anger and fear and ****-swinging in the culture that basic emotional control is difficult.
-
Keep in mind, as a people, white Texan men...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
-
Keep in mind, as a people, European American Texan men...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I'll fix that for you
-
if nether party is armed at worth you have a nut with a knife or a punchout,
Right, because the only way people are murdered or seriously harmed is with guns. That's why there is almost no violence at all in the UK, no risk of being harmed ever, and therefore weapons are not necessary.
because lets face it if someone brakes into your home you are not going for the gun before getting shot first.
There are about 100,000 cases a year where people protect themselves with firearms in the US according to FBI stats. Those are only the ones that are reported.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
They really pound the anti-gun message in hard over there in the UK (damn all logic), but that type of over-controlling rule is why the US exists in the first place.
They don't really say anything about guns at school or during any type of learning we do in the UK to my knowledge, But all im saying is if nether party has a gun then worst is a punchout as most likely thing would not escalate to someone beating the life out of someone, not saying it won't happen just saying its highly unlikely but enjoy your guns by all means and bi annual mass shootings I want nothing of them
they really pound the gun ownership part of your amendment in the US education don't they ;)
Secondly why could you not just walk away without having the gun on you at all, if I read correctly it implies the gun pacify your anger as you know you could kill someone with it, surely a sane person could just smile nod and walk away from something such as what you described.
Keep in mind, as a people, white Texan men believe the earth was formed 6000 years ago; think the best fix for teenage pregnancy is abstinence-only education, preventing people from getting contraceptives, and banning abortions in all cases; are proud to have improved their school test scores via a ballooning dropout rate; think that global climate change is an east coast conspiracy; have deeper relationships with their pickup trucks than with other humans; treat high school football as a religion; have one of the most regressive tax systems in the country with an effective tax rate of >12% of income for the poorest 20% of the population and only 3% of income for the top 1%, making up for lack of state income taxes with oil profits (oops: the state is now being bankrupted by low oil prices); are doing everything they can to prevent hispanics from voting, including new high-profile lawsuits arguing that we shouldn’t count children when drawing up legislative district boundaries; etc.
The white mayor of Dallas recently claimed to be “fearful of large gatherings of white men that come into schools, theaters and shoot people up”.
In such a context, I think there’s just such a pervasive anger and fear and ****-swinging in the culture that basic emotional control is difficult.
Shots fired
Pun intended
-
The problem with this is that while a lot of level-headed people are going to feel that way, not everyone would. I have hung out with my (redneck) family on a couple occasions where the booze is flowing, someone starts an argument, and the argument escalates to the point of people pulling handguns out to "prove" how right their argument is. No shots were ever fired which is great, but that doesn't mean its not going to happen, and with people carrying anywhere they want (including bars) the chances of people getting hot-headed and resorting to their firearm to win the argument increases exponentially.
In Texas at least, being intoxicated while carrying a firearm is against the law. As is carrying a firearm into a bar (defined as any establishment which gets 51% or more of its business from alcohol sales).
Do people agree with those laws in Texas? Because it seems odd to me that people would be fine not carrying guns into a bar but get upset when they can't carry them in other gun-free zones like colleges or stores.
The problem with this is that while a lot of level-headed people are going to feel that way, not everyone would. I have hung out with my (redneck) family on a couple occasions where the booze is flowing, someone starts an argument, and the argument escalates to the point of people pulling handguns out to "prove" how right their argument is. No shots were ever fired which is great, but that doesn't mean its not going to happen, and with people carrying anywhere they want (including bars) the chances of people getting hot-headed and resorting to their firearm to win the argument increases exponentially.
I'm calling BS on that story. People don't routinely pull guns on each other to "symbolically" prove a point. That sounds like some bad anti-gun propaganda.
So you're saying that angry and intoxicated people don't do things that they wouldn't normally do? Because I would strongly beg to differ.
Besides, you can believe or disbelieve whatever you want as I'm not out to convert anyone here, I'm just sharing from personal experience some things that I have seen happen.
-
This is a serious question and I'm genuinely curious but why do some of you commenting from outside of the US give even half a **** about our laws on guns?
Because I feel the need to stop you from hurting your selves, but serious time also then why will you not just change the Amendment its been done before what makes your right to bare arms so meaningful, in all honesty if what it was originally intended to do happened in this day and age you wouldn't stand a chance against taking out the government it just seems silly to everyone outside.
Protecting us from ourselves by means of restriction is a big brother sounding statement that further pushes the pro-gun attitude.
I don't think anyone believes they are going to take out the government. It's about even the remote idea of having a fighting chance, no matter how small that may be.
-
I find it very odd that law abiding gun owners, drinking or not, would ever brandish a weapon without having been in fear for their lives. That's been my experience growing up in an area where every home had at least one gun.
Brandishing is a crime and could even be considered assault with a deadly weapon or worse depending on the circumstances.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I’m not attacking any arguments, so I don’t see how this is relevant.
You said you often feel angry while walking around in public, but a gun helps calm you down.
I was just elaborating about the cultural context that might cause people in your community to walk around feeling angry all the time.
You might think that my commentary is insulting toward Texas white men. That’s certainly true. I think that in general (not you specifically JD) white Texans are angry racist brutes who make policy based on paranoia rather than rational argument. Not at all the same as an ad hominem attack though.
(Seriously: 30 percent of polled Texans in a UT poll agree with the statement, “Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.” Another 30 percent said they “don’t know” whether the statement is true. I didn’t see a break down by gender, race, or party affiliation, but I suspect the number is even higher among white Republican men.)
You might even think my insulting statements are defamatory. If you want, I’m happy to provide sources backing them up.
-
You said you often feel angry while walking around in public, but a gun helps calm you down.
Now, I don't think I did. At times = from time to time= infrequently.
I do get angry at people and their stupidity at times.
-
This is a serious question and I'm genuinely curious but why do some of you commenting from outside of the US give even half a **** about our laws on guns?
I don't really, you are (clearly) free to go about murdering each other and I have little to no desire to ever visit the US. I just find the mentally of needing to own a tool that's only job is to kill things hilarious and quite sad, especially when you feel the need to have to carry it around with you...
I don't carry or feel the need to. Never have. My youngest brother does. He's been through carry classes and all the proper legal stuff.
Owning guns really is kind of a funny thing though. Do I or anyone else need an AK with a 100 round drum? Realistically? No ****ing way. Do I have just that? Of course. Does it bother me that some maniac also has this same access? Absolutely. I still don't feel the need to restrict myself or anyone else because of something someone might do. I don't believe I'm going to fight off any legal entities or criminals either. It is nice to be given the right to own and monitor myself with such a weapon.
I think arguing against guns in America is the same challenge as talking someone out of their religion and belief in God.
-
So JD: How frequently are you angry enough to use a bold 250% larger font?
-
It's a complicated issue, I think sometimes people seem to forget that.
There are also definitely more important issues that citizens and the government in this country should be focusing their enegry on. Pretty embarassing that this is the issue people are so passionate about.
-
So JD: How frequently are you angry enough to use a bold 250% larger font?
Oh, I'm not even mad, bro. I don't tend to get angry over words on the internet.
-
“Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.”
Another 30 percent said they “don’t know” whether the statement is true.
This is the kind of thing that makes me shiver. The US is failing spectacularly and the modern expanded "Bible Belt" is the heart of the cancer.
Mindbogglingly similar to the mode of ISIS.
https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/category/education/
When you refer to books by Al Gore (remember him, the guy who won the 2000 presidential election by over half a million votes?) people tend to think of his pre-Vice-Presidential, proto-Inconvenient-Truth volume "Earth in the Balance" but the best and most interesting read is the later:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Assault_on_Reason
-
lol u guys are ****posting, calm down nerds
rude and uncalled for. sorry
-
Let's stay on topic boys
(http://i.imgur.com/aaPFo2u.png)
-
Anyways, in all reality, both sides are focusing on the extremes. There are law-abiding gun owning citizens that carry not because they feel 'empowered', but mainly as an extra layer of protection in the worst scenarios possible. You may say that if there were no guns, this wouldn't be a problem. This is most definitely true, as if firearms were hard to get then many people would be discouraged to have them. However in a country that for its early years were kept up by guns, there will (to some, unfortunately) be a gun culture. Removing a well established culture by any means will be hard.
Regulations are perfectly fine; they may remove some of the possible fun such as going to the target range with something really awesome, like a retro AR, however the safety of others is more important. Again, it will unfortunately be insanely hard to put these regulations into action.
This is where pro gun is most likely correct. Since realistically, neither can happen, carrying a handgun is most likely the best defense against people that wish to harm you with another sort of firearm.
Also, it's considered to be inappropriate to generalize people in a derogatory fashion.
What should be done where both parties are happy?
(I'm probably going to be ignored/ideas discarded for previous post)
-
I support the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, equally. The purpose of the Amendment, as written by the Founders, was to ensure an armed populace, ready to defend themselves against both foreign aggressors, as well as from the possibility of a tyrannical government in the future.
Mr. Obama continues to eschew the Constitution, rather than defend it, at every opportunity. The edict the issued forth this morning does nothing to increase safety. It was but theater, designed to make his legacy appear more substantial to future generations, while actually accomplishing nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
And for the record it's ridiculous that a document written hundreds of years ago in outdated English is considered to have any authority whatsoever on how to run a country in the 21st century.
Making it harder to buy guns to reduce gun crime is like trying to make it harder to buy a car to fight drunk drivers. What this country needs is stricter punishments for crimes to the point where people are actually afraid to get caught.
Once self driving cars (or simply autos if you prefer that term) are the norm I believe driver licenses and "dumb cars" will become more heavily regulated to reduce the amount of deaths in traffic.
Stricter punishments don't work btw. Because people don't expect to be caught so they don't really care about the severity of the punishment.
As for the rest of this debate there are a few things I'd like to point out.
1. From a Swede's point of view I find the defense argument interesting since guns aren't defensive weapons. They were designed to be able to inflict harm on targets from a distance. The only reason the defense argument works in the US is because there already are so many guns. "I want a gun to protect myself from everyone else who has a gun" has become a legitimate argument for getting a gun, and when you think about it that's kind of insane. In countries like Sweden where guns are rare 'self defense' isn't a valid legal reason to purchase a weapon, it's not even a valid reason to purchase peppar spray.
2. The US needs to talk about suicide. (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/)
It's in my opinion the number one reason why stricter gun laws should be put in place. It's careless to let citizen buy hand guns so easily. There should at least be a waiting period between the time you order a gun and the time you actually get it.
3. Gun free zones aren't supposed to reduce the occurrence of planned mass shootings. They're supposed to reduce the amount of fights that escalate to the point where someone gets shot.
4. Why the **** are suppressors legal? Like seriously, why would anyone need one?
5. It's fascinating how how often the "If/When some bad guy breaks into my house"-argument gets brought up. Are burglaries that common or is it just paranoia?
-
I find it very odd that law abiding gun owners, drinking or not, would ever brandish a weapon without having been in fear for their lives. That's been my experience growing up in an area where every home had at least one gun.
Brandishing is a crime and could even be considered assault with a deadly weapon or worse depending on the circumstances.
Because not everyone treats firearms with the same respect that the majority of guns owners do, which is part of what I'm trying to say. I have seen some of those same family members fighting outside high school basketball games with the visiting teams, to the point of getting arrested, so some of the problem is also obviously anger but guns also make that anger much more dangerous.
-
I find it very odd that law abiding gun owners, drinking or not, would ever brandish a weapon without having been in fear for their lives. That's been my experience growing up in an area where every home had at least one gun.
Brandishing is a crime and could even be considered assault with a deadly weapon or worse depending on the circumstances.
Because not everyone treats firearms with the same respect that the majority of guns owners do, which is part of what I'm trying to say. I have seen some of those same family members fighting outside high school basketball games with the visiting teams, to the point of getting arrested, so some of the problem is also obviously anger but guns also make that anger much more dangerous.
You are describing criminal behavior that would not pass muster when trying to purchase a firearm in the US. Any conviction, and even just arrests in some cases, for assault of any kind will show up on current background checks and cause you to be declined. Not what I would call "law abiding" citizens.
-
4. Why the **** are silencers legal? Like seriously?
They're actually relatively hard to acquire. They require an NFA tax stamp which requires a fee of $200, a background check, and a waiting time of several months.
Contrary to popular belief, they are not silent at all. For example, a Glock 17 with an EVO 9 suppressor with UMC 147 supposedly has a report of 161.6 dB. With the suppressor, it is only 139.1 dB.
-
I support the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, equally. The purpose of the Amendment, as written by the Founders, was to ensure an armed populace, ready to defend themselves against both foreign aggressors, as well as from the possibility of a tyrannical government in the future.
Mr. Obama continues to eschew the Constitution, rather than defend it, at every opportunity. The edict the issued forth this morning does nothing to increase safety. It was but theater, designed to make his legacy appear more substantial to future generations, while actually accomplishing nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
And for the record it's ridiculous that a document written hundreds of years ago in outdated English is considered to have any authority whatsoever on how to run a country in the 21st century.
Making it harder to buy guns to reduce gun crime is like trying to make it harder to buy a car to fight drunk drivers. What this country needs is stricter punishments for crimes to the point where people are actually afraid to get caught.
Once self driving cars (or simply autos if you prefer that term) are the norm I believe driver licenses and "dumb cars" will become more heavily regulated to reduce the amount of deaths in traffic.
Stricter punishments don't work btw. Because people don't expect to be caught so they don't really care about the severity of the punishment.
As for the rest of this debate there are a few things I'd like to point out.
1. From a Swede's point of view I find the defense argument interesting since guns aren't defensive weapons. They were designed to be able to inflict harm on targets from a distance. The only reason the defense argument works in the US is because there already are so many guns. "I want a gun to protect myself from everyone else who has a gun" has become a legitimate argument for getting a gun, and when you think about it that's kind of insane. In countries like Sweden where guns are rare 'self defense' isn't a valid legal reason to purchase a weapon, it's not even a valid reason to purchase peppar spray.
2. The US needs to talk about suicide. (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/)
It's in my opinion the number one reason why stricter gun laws should be put in place. It's careless to let citizen buy hand guns so easily. There should at least be a waiting period between the time you order a gun and the time you actually get it.
3. Gun free zones aren't supposed to reduce the occurrence of planned mass shootings. They're supposed to reduce the amount of fights that escalate to the point where someone gets shot.
4. Why the **** are suppressors legal? Like seriously, why would anyone need one?
5. It's fascinating how how often the "If/When some bad guy breaks into my house"-argument gets brought up. Are burglaries that common or is it just paranoia?
First of all, the documents you refer to were written by brilliantly educated, hard working, and forward thinking men. Perfect? Certainly not, but when the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, and other founding documents were written, the future was most certainly considered. They are the foundation of America without which, there is no reason to have our current government. We might as well start over.
1. Guns are defensive weapons when used for that purpose. They are sporting equipment when used for that purpose, and they are offensive weapons when used for that purpose. Hell, they could be paper weights, decorations, whatever the owner chooses. The defense argument works because people defend themselves (often non-lethally) against those who may want to stab, rape, rob, etc. Thinking that people choose to own guns only to defend themselves from others with guns is misguided.
2. Suicide will not stop with stricter gun laws. People don't buy guns to kill themselves, even though they are more likely to follow through with the suicidal impulse if a gun is available. It's the "easy way out." Taking a gun out of people's hands doesn't solve their problems. It doesn't make them any less suicidal or depressed. It's putting a bandage on a severed arm: you mean well, but you haven't solved the actual problem.
3. How many fights have you seen escalate to the point of someone getting shot? How many of those stories are in the news? Gun free zones are as silly as your argument. If your reasoning were sound, then they would be fight or argument free zones.
4. How many shooters (mass or otherwise) used suppressors? Why do they need to be illegal?
Many people use suppressors for hunting. I think some areas may require them for certain calibers, though I could be mistaken on that point. Also, they aren't fully silent as ignorantly portrayed in the movies. (They don't make that "cool" sound either.) They do reduce the dB level of report from a firearm aiding in hearing protection. How many shooters (mass or otherwise) used suppressors? Why do they need to be illegal?
5. I think there are on average >2 Million home burglaries/invasions per year in this country. In ~28 percent of those, someone is home. That's 560,000 people per year that are home when someone breaks in.
Your posts seem to indicate that you are against Americans having the right to own guns, but why? People don't stop being criminals or decide not to become one because no guns are available. Guns haven't been around forever, but murder and suicide have. I assure you, guns are not the problem. Removing them from the planet will not stop murders, suicides, or mass killings. It also will not get rid of guns. You can bet dollars to doughnuts a black market would spring up for those who wished to procure a firearm, and I'm guessing most wouldn't be law-abiding citizens.
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows. Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.
The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check? Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50. That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask. *Slight edit: California requires this.
Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.
By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters. I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.
Eh, Uncle Sam is always going to get his cut. The tax stamp doesn't bother me.
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows. Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.
The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check? Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50. That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask. *Slight edit: California requires this.
Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.
By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters. I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.
True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!
You should try a 3 gun match or IDPA sometime. You'll quickly see that guns are not merely tools for murdering living things. They are just fun fun fun.
Also, crimes do not stop because guns are taken away. According to the FBI,
Information collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 69.0 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.0 percent of robberies, and 21.6 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for rape.)
Following year over year, 5 year, and even 10 year trends, violent crime has been consistently trending down (without nationally restrictive gun laws). How can this be?!
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
Exactly. I'm pro gun and own guns, but closing the gun show sale loophole is a very sensible gun law change.
Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that all new gun owners should be mandated to undergo firearm safety training and familiarization training on a range and established gun owners should undergo a brief safety course (even if just online) every 5-10 years for gun owners. If you have to have training and a learner's permit, a test, and insurance to drive, it only makes sense for something equally dangerous to have safety requirements in place for you to buy it.
:thumb: :thumb:
As an avid hunter and owner of firearms I agree with this.
Too many idiots out there, responsible people shouldn't need to worry if you're not doing anything wrong.
I agree with mandatory safety training for all first time gun owners. Why not have a license that says you have undergone the requisite training to purchase firearms? That would be more money for the government and something I would support. They could still do point of sale background checks, but without the license they wouldn't even start it. So long as the license is granted for anyone undergoing an initial background check and required safety training, I would gladly be behind the idea.
-
[2] A 9mm will go through a number of pieces of drywall and still be deadly to the family you're supposedly protecting
Always be sure of you're target and what is beyond it.
-
I'm anti gun
FTFY
And this is the problem, if you're not for everyone being able to carry their handgun into their daughters soccer game you're anti-gun.
No need to convince me, I already picked my side :).
I view this as a nuanced issue. It doesn't have to be "no guns anywhere" or "arm your children on their way to preschool."
And the NRA and the hardcore anti-gun nuts make it so there is no chance for discourse. Instead of facts there are emotions, instead of reason fear mongering.
I 100 percent agree. As with most issues, the loudest voices are the ones not worth hearing.
-
There should absolutely be emotion involved. Gun violence is one of the leading causes of death in the US, unlike in any other developed country, and many of the victims are innocent children. Pro-gun activists in Congress have blocked any systematic study from being done related to gun violence, because if you did a study the results would be obvious: less guns and stricter gun access controls leads to dramatically reduced murder/suicide/accidental shooting rates, not to mention better relationships between citizens and police, an overall reduction in violence and crime, etc. Just look to Australia for a shining example. Our current gun laws are senseless brutality, and I consider the pro-gun activism in this country accessory to all these deaths.
I love America, but guns and cars (as in, organizing the whole society around cars, zoning laws which force car use, cities which are crazy unsafe for pedestrians/cyclists, etc.) are basically the #1 and #2 worst things about it. Two amazingly efficient killing machines. At least cars have a non-deadly primary purpose.
Guns don't even make the top ten, though they do play a large part in #10.
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
Why has their been a steady decline in violent crimes in this country over the last 10+ years without any significant, nationally restrictive gun laws? Go to a shooting match (3 gun, IDPA, skeet or trap). You'll absolutely love it. Guns, like cars, are fun.
-
In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?
Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones". All of them.
(Attachment Link)
People don't seem to understand this. They also don't understand that ridding the nation of firearms will not end violence; murders (mass or otherwise), suicides, or rape. Laws do not mean anything to criminals. Why does no one understand that?
-
When you refer to books by Al Gore (remember him, the guy who won the 2000 presidential election by over half a million votes?)
Just to clear up a half truth. Although Al Gore did get more votes than President Bush, the winner of the 2000 election was Bush. In the US, our Presidents are elected based on the number of votes received by the Electoral College. The Bush/Gore decision was the fourth time in US history when the candidate with a higher vote count ending up losing the election. Some people still haven't accepted it. Other seemingly unfair outcomes have occurred in modern times including 3rd party spoilers such as Perot and Nader who probably siphoned off enough votes from a candidate who would have likely won otherwise.
-
Just sayin', **** the electoral college.
-
The thought of a random person carrying a gun in a hostile situation scares the **** out of me. Why? Because very, very few people who carry have been trained to deal with situations like that appropriately. With the exception of military and police members, who have the appropriate training drilled into them over and over to the point that their reactions are almost involuntary, the majority of civilians would not react properly in a situation with a shooter and IMO would probably cause more harm than good.
The chance of additional harm increases in the event of multiple people having firearms in a shooter situation, because they most likely have very limited knowledge of what is going on and could very possibly engage and take down another civilian who might be trying to stop the shooter(s) themselves. I know a lot of gun owners like to think that they would be able to handle the situation properly and I applaud their tenacity in that regard, but I doubt the vast majority of those people have been in a high adrenaline situation before so I am much more skeptical of their abilities.
I do want to point out that I personally have no problems with guns or people owning guns, as I was raised around them and own one myself. My issue is that a lot of gun owners seem to think that because they go to the range a couple times a year, shoot skeet with their buddies, and go hunting during deer season that they now are able to take down a shooter in a hostile and/or hostage situation, which is incorrect.
Guns have been used (non-lethally in most situations) to deter a would-be criminal more times per year than there are deaths by guns (including suicides and negligence). Unfortunately the statistics you always hear or read only mention the few instances where someone using a gun in self defense actually fires it.
-
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.
So much this. My first duty is to protect myself and family. If a fight can be avoided, then I'm definitely one to remove myself from a situation. If however, the fight corners me or my family, and my only recourse is to shoot, I've made my peace with it.
-
lol u guys are ****posting, calm down nerds ¶ rude and uncalled for. sorry
Nah you’re right, I was straight trolling. I do think guns in public are a menace to society though, and I’m thankful that I live in a more civilized place.
-
To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.
To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.
Exactly. I'm pro gun and own guns, but closing the gun show sale loophole is a very sensible gun law change.
Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that all new gun owners should be mandated to undergo firearm safety training and familiarization training on a range and established gun owners should undergo a brief safety course (even if just online) every 5-10 years for gun owners. If you have to have training and a learner's permit, a test, and insurance to drive, it only makes sense for something equally dangerous to have safety requirements in place for you to buy it.
equally dangerous?
i would think that a gun is MORE dangerous because it doesn't cost anything to the user. to run over someone with a car, at least you end up paying for dents and new paint (bullets aren't very expensive in comparison).
-
Making it harder to buy guns to reduce gun crime is like trying to make it harder to buy a car to fight drunk drivers. What this country needs is stricter punishments for crimes to the point where people are actually afraid to get caught.
Once self driving cars (or simply autos if you prefer that term) are the norm I believe driver licenses and "dumb cars" will become more heavily regulated to reduce the amount of deaths in traffic.
I actually suspect the bigger driver of change to be liability. Once there are self-driving cars, we can slowly increase individual liability for folks who choose to drive, and their insurance prices will go up until driving is a hobby for rich people who drive very carefully.
Guns could be similar, if properly regulated. For instance, if every gun and every bullet was imprinted with a serial number, and the manufacturer was directly liable for any shooting which didn’t have a legally documented purchaser, then original gun purchases would all be carefully documented. If that liability followed along the chain of documented ownership, so that someone privately selling their gun had to file paperwork officially transferring liability to the new owner or face damages in the case the gun was used improperly, things would clean up fast. People would be a lot more careful about where their guns were, and would be quicker to report their guns missing/stolen, and we’d do a much better job keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
-
Just to clear up a half truth. Although Al Gore did get more votes than President Bush, the winner of the 2000 election was Bush. In the US, our Presidents are elected based on the number of votes received by the Electoral College.
In the US, our elections are decided by the 5 conservative members of the supreme court, and by the candidate’s governor brother and his cronies. Plus whoever programs the Diebold voting machines.
-
-
This is a serious question and I'm genuinely curious but why do some of you commenting from outside of the US give even half a **** about our laws on guns?
I don't really, you are (clearly) free to go about murdering each other and I have little to no desire to ever visit the US. I just find the mentally of needing to own a tool that's only job is to kill things hilarious and quite sad, especially when you feel the need to have to carry it around with you...
I don't carry or feel the need to. Never have. My youngest brother does. He's been through carry classes and all the proper legal stuff.
Owning guns really is kind of a funny thing though. Do I or anyone else need an AK with a 100 round drum? Realistically? No ****ing way. Do I have just that? Of course. Does it bother me that some maniac also has this same access? Absolutely. I still don't feel the need to restrict myself or anyone else because of something someone might do. I don't believe I'm going to fight off any legal entities or criminals either. It is nice to be given the right to own and monitor myself with such a weapon.
I think arguing against guns in America is the same challenge as talking someone out of their religion and belief in God.
I would agree, which is insane and backs up my point that there is no logical reason to own a gun for protection.
-
Guns don't even make the top ten, though they do play a large part in #10.
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
I believe guns are a small part of #4 Accidents, in addition to #10.
#1, #4, #6, and possibly #5 are mainly caused by poor diet, stress, lack of exercise
#2, #3 are heavily related to smoking, air pollution, industrial jobs, and then a myriad of tiny factors, and mostly lead to death among the elderly
#8 mainly kills people with compromised immune systems, again mostly elderly
#9 is related to a pretty wide variety of underlying issues (various viral infections, cancer, diabetes, certain drugs, ...)
In any case, most of these things are either completely random and unavoidable “acts of god” which we have no way to work on as a society beyond improvements to medical treatment and continuing research, or else are personally avoidable via good lifestyle choices (sleep, diet, exercise, etc.). Gun and car deaths, however, are both largely avoidable at a societal level, and are inflicted on innocent people who have limited choice in eliminating the risk. To be safe, it’s possible to move to areas with walkable neighborhoods, good transit, and no rednecks packing heat, but that’s still no guarantee that a drunk driver won’t hit you or a cop won’t randomly shoot you in the back (though this is more of a problem for non-whites).
* * *
If we really wanted to organize our society around reducing all-cause death rates, the #1 priority would be to reduce poverty, unemployment, and income inequality. The ideal approach would be to tax the **** out of inheritances, wealth of all kinds (especially property), and have very high marginal income tax rates at the top end (e.g. anything past $1M income could be taxed at 80%), with capital gains treated as income. This money could then be distributed widely as an unconditional basic income to all citizens (or even all residents). This is not politically feasible in the post-Reagan greed-is-god era, but would have a great effect on many causes of death including in particular heart disease, strokes, respiratory diseases, accidents, diabetes, and self harm, and would also greatly reduce crime and violence in general. Other policy goals in this general area include de-financialization of the economy, increased infrastructure spending, reform of the criminal justice system, and dramatic education policy reform, in particular spreading a lot more money to schools in poor neighborhoods.
Priority #2 would be to get everyone into a single-payer healthcare system. The current US healthcare system is the most inefficient in the world, combining incredibly high prices with awful outcomes. We could pick pretty much any other developed country in the world as a model for something better. There are lots of choices in the details.
Priority #3 would be to change cost/incentives related to poor diets, by dramatically changing agriculture policy to reduce subsidies for corn, wheat, and soybeans, institute high taxes on sweeteners of all kinds, make heavily processed foods and restaurant fast food more expensive, and improve access to fresh vegetables nationwide. I’m sure there are industrial-scale ways of efficiently getting basic nutrients to people if we put our brightest minds on the task.
After that, the changes are going to be much harder. Changing nationwide zoning laws to restructure all of our urban areas into more walkable mixed-use neighborhoods with better access to jobs, stores, and public transit is a nearly impossible challenge at this point. Unfortunately, whether we do anything grand as a nation or not, many suburbs are going to become bankrupt ghost towns in the coming decades, with infrastructure maintenance costs outstripping available tax revenue.
Changing work culture so that professionals don’t spend 10 years in awful hazing rituals like medical residencies and junior positions in law firms, and stick to <40 hours/workweek or less is going to be pretty difficult. For whatever reason, Americans love to work and firms love to force more work hours, even when it can be clearly demonstrated that working more hours leads to quickly diminishing returns and at some point negative returns. Providing better childcare benefits, proper enforcement of sick days, sufficient vacation, etc. is going to be a political non-starter in a country where labor is now entirely defanged.
Etc.
-
While you're raising the cost of and restricting peoples lifestyles, maybe you should include a ban or maybe a 500 percent tax on alcohol? I'm sure a large number of those accidents are caused by intoxicated drivers.
I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.
-
maybe a 500 percent tax on alcohol?
Have you been skyping with the Australian government for social engineering ideas or something ?
-
I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.
Better to have private companies do it?
-
maybe a 500 percent tax on alcohol?
Have you been skyping with the Australian government for social engineering ideas or something ?
Please explain.
-
While you're raising the cost of and restricting peoples lifestyles,
Well notice we’re compensating by paying every citizen a fat check, at least $1000/month, or maybe double or triple that if possible. Instead of thinking of this as “restricting people’s lifestyles”, the better frame is “passing the external costs of people’s lifestyles onto them directly, so they can make choices with better information.” I have no problem with e.g. people eating beef (I love beef), but when every dollar of beef consumption costs several dollars of environmental destruction and unrecoverable water use, then the economy is broken, and folks will end up eating unsustainable amounts of beef who would be perfectly fine if they mostly ate chicken or pork instead. Same story for single couples living in 3000 square foot houses and heating them to 72° year-round, or people commuting weekly by airplane trip, or people driving their SUVs 200 miles/day with one person in the car not hauling anything, or people wearing a new set of clothes every day and throwing them in the trash at the end, or whatever else. The choice should be left up to the individual, but the prices should be adjusted so the next generation isn’t left completely ****ed.
maybe you should include a ban or maybe a 500 percent tax on alcohol?
Increased taxes on alcohol sounds fine, though I’m not sure how much it’ll help. Banning alcohol seems likely to cause as many problems as it solves.
Real problem isn’t alcohol per se, but binge drinking and drunk driving. Hopefully some combination of self-driving cars and better urban design (bars in walking distance of homes) and maybe raising the legal driving age to 18 or higher can take care of some of the drunk driving part. Massively increased liability for drunk driving accidents could also help. Maybe get rid of parking at bars? For binge drinking among young people, I think the best solution is to lower the legal drinking age, as effectively nobody respects the 21 cutoff. Most of Europe seems to have a much healthier drinking culture than the US, especially among college students. Beyond that, we mainly need better mental health care and generally improved social support. A lot of drinking is caused by environmental stresses such as poverty, unemployment, violence in the community, fragile family lives, etc.
Same story for prescription painkillers or illegal drugs. Some use is recreation by people who want to have fun. We should strive to give people safe legal options and minimize third-party harm from that. Some part is pure addiction, and the best help for that is improved mental healthcare, support for rehabilitation, etc. Other use is people whose lives are ****ed who just want to forget everything. This can’t really be solved without tackling the underlying social problems like massive inequality, unemployment, poverty, workplace stress, racism, etc.
I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.
We already have absolutely massive state- and society-controlled social engineering. Every aspect of our lives is strictly constrained by the prevailing economic and social order. The reasons people have become much less healthy (in certain respects) in the past few decades owe to large-scale forces, not individual choices. I actually would prefer less overall state intrusion into people’s daily lives (also less corporate intrusion). My proposals are mostly redirecting state efforts, rather than increasing their scope. For instance, implementing an unconditional basic income instead of a hodge-podge of means-tested welfare programs will dramatically reduce state intervention into people’s daily choices.
-
maybe a 500 percent tax on alcohol?
Have you been skyping with the Australian government for social engineering ideas or something ?
Please explain.
Australia govt likes to tax the crap out of booze, more so tobacco. They have been hiking tax on tobacco, for the past couple of years as a way of making it non-appealing to future generations and current smokers. This has been to the point where I know a bunch of smokers that earn 6 figures yet smoke rollies, traditionally reserved for those reliant on the 'dole' for income. Do I think the overall result is worth it, yes. Do I think that they should just bite the bullet and ban tobacco, yes. Am I an on again, off again smoker... yes. Do I love smoking... yes. Fact of the matter is that current tobacco products in the form of tailor-made were designed to be highly addictive and fast acting so much so that if my memory of the assignment I did on tobacco a few years ago serves me well, that the number of smokers rose dramatically after the introduction of cigarettes. This was also a combination of aggressive marketing and govt ties etc.
tl;dr: Straya tax tobacco till it goes away.
-
I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.
Better to have private companies do it?
Neither.
-
Fanpeople Thanks for the explanation.
-
Plus whoever programs the Diebold voting machines.
And, frankly, this is one of the most frightening things of all.
US elections do not even remotely meet accepted international standards of transparency.
-
Nobody likes to lose but we shouldn't blame the ump when we strike out.
-
Nobody likes to lose but we shouldn't blame the ump when we strike out.
Nothing would have pleased me more than for there to have been an umpire in existence.
PS - by definition an umpire is an impartial 3rd party
-
maybe a 500 percent tax on alcohol?
Have you been skyping with the Australian government for social engineering ideas or something ?
Please explain.
Do I think that they should just bite the bullet and ban tobacco, yes.
There has not been one single outright ban in the world that has worked. When the czar of China banned opium, its use increased roughly 800%.
-
I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.
Better to have private companies do it?
Absolutely, regarding privatization in general. Competition breeds excellence...complacency breeds failure.
-
I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.
Better to have private companies do it?
Absolutely, regarding privatization in general. Competition breeds excellence...complacency breeds failure.
lmao
its **** like this, where I can't tell if everyone is being sarcastic or not haha
-
Capitalism and the free market are the 'murican way. ;)
-
Capitalism and the free market are the 'murican way. ;)
Yeah and it's working out great lmao
>to expand
This kind of **** boils down to insane patriotism, worshiping a flag and loving the constitution. Which is all insane.
-
So Melvang: any response to the Honduras/Switzerland thing? Or are you going to concede that I completely destroyed your argument and made you look silly?
Sorry, I have a personal life outside of geekhack and can't normally check at work since I have used a computer at work twice since fall of 07. This happens tends to happen if you want a decent paying job and were a high school drop out.
Hondorus has some of the strictest gun control in the world and has the highest per capita murder rate.
Honduras is in the middle of a huge drug traffic route, was basically a slave society of indigenous peasants ruled by a small minority of Spaniards starting in ~1500, and then by American banana companies in the 20th century, was governed by various military juntas and fought in bloody wars with its neighbors (wars supported by the US) as well as in various guerrilla civil wars up through the early 1980s, during which time American arms companies flooded the place with handguns, is on its 12th constitution dating from 1982 which was amended a further 26 times in the 25 years after that, and most recently was taken over again by a military coup. The country was completely wrecked by a hurricane in 1998 and then again by massive flooding in 2008, and has a basically broken economy. Something like half the population is below the poverty line, and the unemployment rate is 30%.
As for gun control, according to Wikipedia, “Until June 2007, openly carrying a firearm in public as well carrying a concealed weapon was permitted but increased attention to deaths by firearm in the country led to further restrictions on the possession of firearms. Current law still makes the purchase, ownership, and possession of firearms legal and it describes the type of firearms permitted for civilian ownership.”
I’m really not sure why you think this is at all relevant to a conversation about the US, unless you’re trying to argue about how terrible US foreign policy toward Latin America was for the past 200 years, especially during the 1950s–1980s.
By contrast Switzerland essentially requires every household to own a gun. They have the lowest per capita murder rate.
By contrast, if you exclude little city-states, Switzerland is the third richest country by per capita income in the world, after Norway and UAE, which are both oil states, and the wealthiest in per capita assets. The unemployment rate and poverty rate are both extremely low. It has been basically independent and politically stable and relatively untouched by violence in the post-Napoleonic era.
It hands out guns to people during its compulsory military service, which includes something like a half year of strict training. Members of the military keep their guns at home, but don’t keep ammunition there. Acquiring ammunition in Switzerland requires ID, current gun license, address, and criminal history, and ammunition purchases are registered with the government. Swiss are only allowed to carry weapons in public if they have a permit, which generally requires working in a security-related job. Transporting a gun from place to place without such a permit requires that it be unloaded and carried without ammunition, and requires a valid purpose.
Again, nothing at all like the US. Overall, I’d feel much more comfortable if we had something similar to Swiss gun culture in the US. It seems dramatically saner.
If anyone tried to convert the US to Swiss gun laws, the NRA would throw a fit.
You actually made my point. Gun control laws don't mean **** to criminals. If they want to murder, rape, and steal, with guns, the are going to do so. Passing more gun control laws means **** to them, if they want a gun to do these things with they will find a way. Crime has MUCH more to do with many other aspects of the area than what gun control laws are in place. Not to mention, that there is zero correlation between gun control and crime. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities
With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals. The simple answer, you won't.
-
Capitalism and the free market are the 'murican way. ;)
Yeah and it's working out great lmao
You're a funny dude. Seriously. :P
A great example of privatization would be the Space program(s) here in the US. Most Americans thought that NASA was a waste of money and Federal funding was cut down quite a bit. Now look at how private US companies are advancing space travel at a rate NASA could only dream of and for less money. Better products, accelerated innovation, less money from the US tax payers.
-
With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals. The simple answer, you won't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
yeah bans don't work
Capitalism and the free market are the 'murican way. ;)
Yeah and it's working out great lmao
You're a funny dude. Seriously. :P
A great example of privatization would be the Space program(s) here in the US. Most Americans thought that NASA was a waste of money and Federal funding was cut down quite a bit. Now look at how private US companies are advancing space travel at a rate NASA could only dream of and for less money. Better products, accelerated innovation, less money from the US tax payers.
(I'm not familiar with the budget or funding of NASA, surprisingly) Like what? When NASA was state funded they went to the moon, in the what 40 years since all 'we' have been able to do is have a small space center orbiting the Earth and put some robots on Mars.
I'm not against privatization in anyway, it can be great and do well, I'm not some insane socialist or communist, but to try and argue that one extreme is better than another is retarded.
If the US put even .1% of its defense budget into firearms training and restrictions, you'd be a lot safer and the rest of the world might get some restbite
-
With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals. The simple answer, you won't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
yeah bans don't work
At face value those numbers seem to support your argument. What those numbers don't show is that those countries with lower numbers "always" had lower numbers of guns and gun deaths even before any bans. A by product of (some may consider an advantage of) living in a less than free society. Another thing that's not factored in are social constructs and standards. What I mean by that is that, unfortunately, Americans seem to be more violent in general when compared to other similar societies. A lot of it has to do with the proliferation of the "gang culture" here and how "cool" violence is portrayed.
That's what I was talking about when I said the real problem is violence and why people feel the need for violence. It's definitely not because they have a gun that they are violent. It's that they choose to use the gun in an act of violence. It's the person, not the gun.
-
Do we need some Federal control? Sure. We don't need Federal control of almost every aspect of our lives. I know that's probably hard to imagine for many Europeans.
-
With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals. The simple answer, you won't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
yeah bans don't work
At face value those numbers seem to support your argument. What those numbers don't show is that those countries with lower numbers "always" had lower numbers of guns and gun deaths even before any bans. A by product of (some may consider an advantage of) living in a less than free society. Another thing that's not factored in are social constructs and standards. What I mean by that is that, unfortunately, Americans seem to be more violent in general when compared to other similar societies. A lot of it has to do with the proliferation of the "gang culture" here and how "cool" violence is portrayed.
That's what I was talking about when I said the real problem is violence and why people feel the need for violence. It's definitely not because they have a gun that they are violent. It's that they choose to use the gun in an act of violence. It's the person, not the gun.
I mean I can't make any reasonable argument because your statements are insane. How is an American any freer than a European?
Your government spies on you more than pretty much every other nation (bar maybe the UK, not sure) and this is well documented, you have horrible consumer rights, your presidential election is controlled by who has the most money and is at best a two party system where no other party can even afford a look in, you have more controls over air flights than any other country I've heard off, you have insanely expensive health care and a laughable social care system, America has a massive level of poverty considering its GDP...
Like what crack are you on? Europe isn't perfect and has huge problems, but to try and suggest that America is, as a fact, more free than another other democratic developed nation is nonsense.
Then you go on about how America is naturally more violent than other nations, which is garbage again, that's simply a symptom of paranoia that is bread from your insane laws and perpetuated by the 'free market' news outlets desperate for views rather than facts.
Do we need some Federal control? Sure. We don't need Federal control of almost every aspect of our lives. I know that's probably hard to imagine for many Europeans.
Again what the **** are you smoking? You know 1984 wasn't a documentary, right?
-
With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals. The simple answer, you won't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
yeah bans don't work
At face value those numbers seem to support your argument. What those numbers don't show is that those countries with lower numbers "always" had lower numbers of guns and gun deaths even before any bans. A by product of (some may consider an advantage of) living in a less than free society. Another thing that's not factored in are social constructs and standards. What I mean by that is that, unfortunately, Americans seem to be more violent in general when compared to other similar societies. A lot of it has to do with the proliferation of the "gang culture" here and how "cool" violence is portrayed.
That's what I was talking about when I said the real problem is violence and why people feel the need for violence. It's definitely not because they have a gun that they are violent. It's that they choose to use the gun in an act of violence. It's the person, not the gun.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/
-
Also, in your wiki list, Mexico has a total ban on guns. Their death rate by guns is one of the highest if not the highest in the world.
Baldgye, you are resorting to name calling and hyperbole. Not a sign of rational thinking. Your posts still make me laugh though.
-
Mint Press News > Wikipeida
TIL
Also, in your wiki list, Mexico has a total ban on guns. Their death rate by guns is one of the highest if not the highest in the world.
Baldgye, you are resorting to name calling and hyperbole. Not a sign of rational thinking. Your posts still make me laugh though.
Oh your actually insane, well in that case ggwp m9
-
Amazing that people are failing to include the visual media, whether it be Hollywood glamorizing extraordinary violence and destruction fictionally, or the (faux) news outlets continuing to beat any sensational crime after it has died, rotted away, and turned to dust, while ignoring the real (hidden, silent) problems of American society.
-
With all your support for gun control, you still have failed to even hint at how you plan on taking guns from criminals. The simple answer, you won't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
yeah bans don't work
At face value those numbers seem to support your argument. What those numbers don't show is that those countries with lower numbers "always" had lower numbers of guns and gun deaths even before any bans. A by product of (some may consider an advantage of) living in a less than free society. Another thing that's not factored in are social constructs and standards. What I mean by that is that, unfortunately, Americans seem to be more violent in general when compared to other similar societies. A lot of it has to do with the proliferation of the "gang culture" here and how "cool" violence is portrayed.
That's what I was talking about when I said the real problem is violence and why people feel the need for violence. It's definitely not because they have a gun that they are violent. It's that they choose to use the gun in an act of violence. It's the person, not the gun.
I mean I can't make any reasonable argument because your statements are insane. How is an American any freer than a European?
Your government spies on you more than pretty much every other nation (bar maybe the UK, not sure) and this is well documented, you have horrible consumer rights, your presidential election is controlled by who has the most money and is at best a two party system where no other party can even afford a look in, you have more controls over air flights than any other country I've heard off, you have insanely expensive health care and a laughable social care system, America has a massive level of poverty considering its GDP...
Like what crack are you on? Europe isn't perfect and has huge problems, but to try and suggest that America is, as a fact, more free than another other democratic developed nation is nonsense.
Then you go on about how America is naturally more violent than other nations, which is garbage again, that's simply a symptom of paranoia that is bread from your insane laws and perpetuated by the 'free market' news outlets desperate for views rather than facts.
Do we need some Federal control? Sure. We don't need Federal control of almost every aspect of our lives. I know that's probably hard to imagine for many Europeans.
Again what the **** are you smoking? You know 1984 wasn't a documentary, right?
1. The US spies on the entire world which includes the US. It does not spy on US citizens to control and monitor them like the UK does.
2. Consumer "rights" are "governmental controls".
3. The "expensive" health care has been a free market system, and still is to a degree, until the Affordable Healthcare Act.
You just made my argument for me. Those are all examples of LESS governmental control.
The highest number of people shot in the US (besides suicide maybe) are those who are violent criminals (gang bangers). We are talking "gun violence" in this thread right? That's the term that people like to use.
-
Amazing that people are failing to include the visual media, whether it be Hollywood glamorizing extraordinary violence and destruction fictionally, or the (faux) news outlets continuing to beat any sensational crime after it has died, rotted away, and turned to dust, while ignoring the real (hidden, silent) problems of American society.
I tend to agree with you, but some basic studies have failed to make any correlation between media and violence.
-
3. The "expensive" health care has been a free market system, and still is to a degree, until the Affordable Healthcare Act.
The Affordable Healthcare Act has been spectacularly successful in providing care for millions of Americans and lowering costs, but is also a monumental giveaway to the medical industry, insurance and drug companies in particular.
It is a perfect example of when and where the Federal government should intervene when an industry has run amok.
-
I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.
Better to have private companies do it?
Absolutely, regarding privatization in general. Competition breeds excellence...complacency breeds failure.
The goal of an unregulated capitalistic/"competitive" system is to make more money, not to make society better.
See the California electricity crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis) for example.
-
I'm all for self improvement and encouraging healthful lifestyles but to trust the Federal Government with that degree of social engineering is frightening.
Better to have private companies do it?
Absolutely, regarding privatization in general. Competition breeds excellence...complacency breeds failure.
The goal of an unregulated capitalistic/"competitive" system is to make more money, not to make society better.
See the California electricity crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis) for example.
Absolutely, and if you provide a bad service customers move to someone who offers a better service. That's what breeds innovation. Energy is highly privatized in the US. You are pointing to an article about the effects of the Enron Crisis on one area. It was a terrible thing that ruined many lives and it was also highly illegal.
-
Guys, can we get back on topic.
I watched the video that was posted in the OP. From what I could gather, all it said was the main purpose was to require more people to obtain a FFL due to the nature of their business. Essentially, if you sell guns for profit, you need an FFL, which then requires you to preform a background check. This I really don't have a problem with.
Just some food for thought here.
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/gun-background-checks-nics-failure/
-
I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.
-
I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.
Would you have a problem with required training? What about records of transfers done between individuals? Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.
Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.
-
I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.
Would you have a problem with required training? What about records of transfers done between individuals? Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.
Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.
Required training, I see really only necessary for concealed carry. As far as records for transfers, I am torn on that. It isn't much of a step from that to a national registry which has been deemed unconstitutional if i remember correct. Now, one thing I could see is having an endorsement on your drivers license that stated you passed a background check for purposes of purchasing a gun. The DOT could preform the background check in seconds via electronic database. Nothing to change aside from a spot on the back with mention of it similar to organ donor, eye glasses restrictions, CDL, and motorcycle endorsements.
-
I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.
Would you have a problem with required training? What about records of transfers done between individuals? Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.
Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.
I'm not sure about the training. I haven't given it much thought. I grew up around guns like most of my childhood friends and everyone understood basic firearms safety and usage. Now, living in one of the largest cities in the country I know that's not the norm here.
We already have mandatory background checks except for private sales which this executive order covers. I don't think my Dad should have had to fill out ATF paperwork to give me my first shotgun as a kid. That's a little extreme. As for transfers to criminals, that's already covered under current Gun Laws and is considered a Straw Purchase which is illegal.
-
I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.
Would you have a problem with required training? What about records of transfers done between individuals? Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.
Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.
Required training, I see really only necessary for concealed carry. As far as records for transfers, I am torn on that. It isn't much of a step from that to a national registry which has been deemed unconstitutional if i remember correct. Now, one thing I could see is having an endorsement on your drivers license that stated you passed a background check for purposes of purchasing a gun. The DOT could preform the background check in seconds via electronic database. Nothing to change aside from a spot on the back with mention of it similar to organ donor, eye glasses restrictions, CDL, and motorcycle endorsements.
Right, any concealed carrier already goes through training and the lawful use of said weapon (only if you are in mortal danger, basically.) Also, many states require some basic gun safety training to get a hunting licence. And I agree that "registering" every transfer even gifts is not far off from a National registry.
-
I feel like applying gun laws in america in this day and age will do nothing, as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.
-
I feel like applying gun laws in america in this day and age will do nothing, as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.
Gun laws don't do anything for crime in any country. There is zero correlation between gun ownership (by proxy here also gun laws as in most cases the number of guns owned by citizens can be directly linked to the gun laws of that area).
http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Guns-in-other-countries-firearm-owenership-and-homicides.jpg
-
I feel like applying gun laws in america in this day and age will do nothing, as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.
Gun laws don't do anything for crime in any country. There is zero correlation between gun ownership (by proxy here also gun laws as in most cases the number of guns owned by citizens can be directly linked to the gun laws of that area).
http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Guns-in-other-countries-firearm-owenership-and-homicides.jpg
Exactly, the very little it does to prevent crime doesn't matter. Only thing it prevents would be suicides.
-
as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.
It really isn't like that. The raw number of gun owners has held approximately steady for generations, and since WW2 the percentage of households where guns are owned has generally been declining.
The difference is that where a couple of generations ago the typical American gun owner had a shotgun for hunting birds and a rifle for hunting mammals, the typical gun owner today has more than 8 guns and the majority of them are pistols.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822
-
as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.
It really isn't like that. The raw number of gun owners has held approximately steady for generations, and since WW2 the number of households where guns are owned has generally been declining.
The difference is that where a couple of generations ago the typical American gun owner had a shotgun for hunting birds and a rifle for hunting mammals, the typical gun owner today has more than 8 guns and the majority of them are pistols.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822
Right, and it's nearly impossible for a criminal to get a gun from a legitimate dealer with the background checks we have in place. They have to resort to illegally obtaining firearms.
-
as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.
It really isn't like that. The raw number of gun owners has held approximately steady for generations, and since WW2 the number of households where guns are owned has generally been declining.
The difference is that where a couple of generations ago the typical American gun owner had a shotgun for hunting birds and a rifle for hunting mammals, the typical gun owner today has more than 8 guns and the majority of them are pistols.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822
I do think in america a gun law should be applied not for crime but to make sure owners are responsible, a thorough background check + a license that requires no course to get, basically there just to validate you got a background to prove to gun shops.
-
as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.
It really isn't like that. The raw number of gun owners has held approximately steady for generations, and since WW2 the number of households where guns are owned has generally been declining.
The difference is that where a couple of generations ago the typical American gun owner had a shotgun for hunting birds and a rifle for hunting mammals, the typical gun owner today has more than 8 guns and the majority of them are pistols.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822
I do think in america a gun law should be applied not for crime but to make sure owners are responsible, a thorough background check + a license that requires no course to get, basically there just to validate you got a background to prove to gun shops.
I don't understand why people think you can just go buy a gun from Walmart without a background check. Every state requires a background check as far as I know. The ones I've lived in certainly do.
-
I just double checked and yes, the FBI background check is required Nationally and has been since 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System
-
maybe a 500 percent tax on alcohol?
Have you been skyping with the Australian government for social engineering ideas or something ?
Please explain.
Do I think that they should just bite the bullet and ban tobacco, yes.
There has not been one single outright ban in the world that has worked. When the czar of China banned opium, its use increased roughly 800%.
Sorry i should have been more specific, i mean ban its sale. Obvioulsy dont criminilise its use or possession up to a pretty large amount as we dont need more ****ing dumb convictions and punishments. If people really want to go to all that effort to sell, buy tobacco via drug means so be it. But i mean i cant see that many new people rushing out to pick up tobbacco for the weekend party. You can understand weed, booze, opium etc as it has a noticable effect first time. Tobbacco takes a bit before it becomes habbit. There is also the status/social driver responsible for cigetettes initial spread that in australia at least have been countered in various campaigns and thses factors as well as the price hike has lead to a decrease in the number of smokers. Well in Australia at least. Funny thing is i personally dont smoke weed but do think at a minimum it should be decriminilised. I would also rather people go out and get high than sink booze. But then again this is just my opinion and i am sure weed does the same if not more damage then tobacco.
Also Its a bit of a one liner to apply an example from the 1800s especially when there was a pretty large disconnect between the port authorities and the law makers. I believe many would look the other way with bribes etc. I mean i am pretty sure that the ban was not really enforced. Also the brits were pushing its sale pretty hard and inventing methods of illegally importating opium. When you have a powerful nation behind the import that was willing to use force to ensure its continued sale i mean what do you expect. And that is what they did, in the end the government tried to crack down and the Brits used force to ensure they could continue the trade. The supply was maintained and increased the whole time and when it was interupted force was used to ensure the imports could continue.
Also what time period are you talking abould for an 800% increase in use. Can you provide a source i am legitimatly interested in this topic and would like to have a look.
-
I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.
Would you have a problem with required training? What about records of transfers done between individuals? Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.
Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.
Required training, I see really only necessary for concealed carry. As far as records for transfers, I am torn on that. It isn't much of a step from that to a national registry which has been deemed unconstitutional if i remember correct. Now, one thing I could see is having an endorsement on your drivers license that stated you passed a background check for purposes of purchasing a gun. The DOT could preform the background check in seconds via electronic database. Nothing to change aside from a spot on the back with mention of it similar to organ donor, eye glasses restrictions, CDL, and motorcycle endorsements.
Right, any concealed carrier already goes through training and the lawful use of said weapon (only if you are in mortal danger, basically.) Also, many states require some basic gun safety training to get a hunting licence. And I agree that "registering" every transfer even gifts is not far off from a National registry.
There are no restrictions on concealed carry in AZ other than legality of the person owning the firearm and locations specifying gun free zone.
Also nothing on hunting license training either. Just go buy one and go shoot ****.
Our gun laws are amazingly lax.
And I just learned it's legal for me to fire off blanks with the biggest trouble being disturbing the peace. A "safe" way to be an ******* on NYE. Nice.
-
I have no problem with background checks or reasonable waiting periods either. FFLs aren't that much money. You just need to be able to pass an FBI background check and pay a few hundred dollars. I'm all for it.
Would you have a problem with required training? What about records of transfers done between individuals? Those (along with mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods like you mentioned) are most of the things I really care to see happen in the US in regards to gun control.
Basic training course(s) seem like common sense to me, and records of transfers seems to be a good way of keeping track of transactions that normally wouldn't be recorded.
Required training, I see really only necessary for concealed carry. As far as records for transfers, I am torn on that. It isn't much of a step from that to a national registry which has been deemed unconstitutional if i remember correct. Now, one thing I could see is having an endorsement on your drivers license that stated you passed a background check for purposes of purchasing a gun. The DOT could preform the background check in seconds via electronic database. Nothing to change aside from a spot on the back with mention of it similar to organ donor, eye glasses restrictions, CDL, and motorcycle endorsements.
Right, any concealed carrier already goes through training and the lawful use of said weapon (only if you are in mortal danger, basically.) Also, many states require some basic gun safety training to get a hunting licence. And I agree that "registering" every transfer even gifts is not far off from a National registry.
There are no restrictions on concealed carry in AZ other than legality of the person owning the firearm and locations specifying gun free zone.
Also nothing on hunting license training either. Just go buy one and go shoot ****.
Our gun laws are amazingly lax.
And I just learned it's legal for me to fire off blanks with the biggest trouble being disturbing the peace. A "safe" way to be an ******* on NYE. Nice.
Arizona is certainly the exception. I'm in Texas and the Gun laws are much more stringent (as they are in the majority of States) despite popular belief.
-
If people really want to go to all that effort to sell, buy tobacco via drug means so be it. But i mean i cant see that many new people rushing out to pick up tobbacco for the weekend party. You can understand weed, booze, opium etc as it has a noticable effect first time.
These things are all different and can't really be compared.
The question is always where to draw the line. Smoking 20 cigarettes in a day may not significantly impair you while smoking 20 joints would, yet nicotine is highly addictive and THC is not. WTF?
The intractable question is that while there is no harm in sitting home and drinking yourself into oblivion and it is socially acceptable (because nobody knows), getting behind the wheel of your car is not. Likewise, an aresnal of guns and ammunition behind locked doors is harmless but a single gun and a single bullet in public can be a significant menace.
There is no reasonable way to unequivocally determine, from external appearances, where a situation will lead when guns are involved, and who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
-
as almost everyone has guns in america getting a gun is like inserting money in a vending machine and pressing the button.
It really isn't like that. The raw number of gun owners has held approximately steady for generations, and since WW2 the number of households where guns are owned has generally been declining.
The difference is that where a couple of generations ago the typical American gun owner had a shotgun for hunting birds and a rifle for hunting mammals, the typical gun owner today has more than 8 guns and the majority of them are pistols.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822
I do think in america a gun law should be applied not for crime but to make sure owners are responsible, a thorough background check + a license that requires no course to get, basically there just to validate you got a background to prove to gun shops.
I don't understand why people think you can just go buy a gun from Walmart without a background check. Every state requires a background check as far as I know. The ones I've lived in certainly do.
Notice how I said "thorough background check" the background checks that happen aren't thorough enough tbh.
-
There is no reasonable way to unequivocally determine, from external appearances, where a situation will lead when guns are involved, and who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
Which goes back to the real issue with "gun violence" ; the violence. Examining and trying to prevent violence is the real problem that needs to be solved. Yet, nobody wants to even admit it exists regardless of how its perpetrated. It's the evil guns that cause violence.
-
Notice how I said "thorough background check" the background checks that happen aren't thorough enough tbh.
So, it should be more thorough than what's already listed under Prohibited Persons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System
Everyone who buys a gun legally is checked with this system in the US.
-
Notice how I said "thorough background check" the background checks that happen aren't thorough enough tbh.
So, it should be more thorough than what's already listed under Prohibited Persons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System
Everyone who buys a gun legally is checked with this system in the US.
This nationally only applies to persons buying from a store with an FFL. Buying from a private person, not required in most states, unless the buyer is making the purchase outside of their own state.
-
Those pesky guns, always going around killing people. The people behind the trigger had no idea what that evil gun was about to do that day...
-
Notice how I said "thorough background check" the background checks that happen aren't thorough enough tbh.
So, it should be more thorough than what's already listed under Prohibited Persons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System
Everyone who buys a gun legally is checked with this system in the US.
This nationally only applies to persons buying from a store with an FFL. Buying from a private person, not required in most states, unless the buyer is making the purchase outside of their own state.
Right, I've pointed that out some of my previous posts and didn't want to sound like a broken record...Most people buy from FFLs (stores) usually.
-
Guns don't even make the top ten, though they do play a large part in #10.
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
I believe guns are a small part of #4 Accidents, in addition to #10.
#1, #4, #6, and possibly #5 are mainly caused by poor diet, stress, lack of exercise
#2, #3 are heavily related to smoking, air pollution, industrial jobs, and then a myriad of tiny factors, and mostly lead to death among the elderly
#8 mainly kills people with compromised immune systems, again mostly elderly
#9 is related to a pretty wide variety of underlying issues (various viral infections, cancer, diabetes, certain drugs, ...)
In any case, most of these things are either completely random and unavoidable “acts of god” which we have no way to work on as a society beyond improvements to medical treatment and continuing research, or else are personally avoidable via good lifestyle choices (sleep, diet, exercise, etc.). Gun and car deaths, however, are both largely avoidable at a societal level, and are inflicted on innocent people who have limited choice in eliminating the risk. To be safe, it’s possible to move to areas with walkable neighborhoods, good transit, and no rednecks packing heat, but that’s still no guarantee that a drunk driver won’t hit you or a cop won’t randomly shoot you in the back (though this is more of a problem for non-whites).
* * *
If we really wanted to organize our society around reducing all-cause death rates, the #1 priority would be to reduce poverty, unemployment, and income inequality. The ideal approach would be to tax the **** out of inheritances, wealth of all kinds (especially property), and have very high marginal income tax rates at the top end (e.g. anything past $1M income could be taxed at 80%), with capital gains treated as income. This money could then be distributed widely as an unconditional basic income to all citizens (or even all residents). This is not politically feasible in the post-Reagan greed-is-god era, but would have a great effect on many causes of death including in particular heart disease, strokes, respiratory diseases, accidents, diabetes, and self harm, and would also greatly reduce crime and violence in general. Other policy goals in this general area include de-financialization of the economy, increased infrastructure spending, reform of the criminal justice system, and dramatic education policy reform, in particular spreading a lot more money to schools in poor neighborhoods.
Priority #2 would be to get everyone into a single-payer healthcare system. The current US healthcare system is the most inefficient in the world, combining incredibly high prices with awful outcomes. We could pick pretty much any other developed country in the world as a model for something better. There are lots of choices in the details.
Priority #3 would be to change cost/incentives related to poor diets, by dramatically changing agriculture policy to reduce subsidies for corn, wheat, and soybeans, institute high taxes on sweeteners of all kinds, make heavily processed foods and restaurant fast food more expensive, and improve access to fresh vegetables nationwide. I’m sure there are industrial-scale ways of efficiently getting basic nutrients to people if we put our brightest minds on the task.
After that, the changes are going to be much harder. Changing nationwide zoning laws to restructure all of our urban areas into more walkable mixed-use neighborhoods with better access to jobs, stores, and public transit is a nearly impossible challenge at this point. Unfortunately, whether we do anything grand as a nation or not, many suburbs are going to become bankrupt ghost towns in the coming decades, with infrastructure maintenance costs outstripping available tax revenue.
Changing work culture so that professionals don’t spend 10 years in awful hazing rituals like medical residencies and junior positions in law firms, and stick to <40 hours/workweek or less is going to be pretty difficult. For whatever reason, Americans love to work and firms love to force more work hours, even when it can be clearly demonstrated that working more hours leads to quickly diminishing returns and at some point negative returns. Providing better childcare benefits, proper enforcement of sick days, sufficient vacation, etc. is going to be a political non-starter in a country where labor is now entirely defanged.
Etc.
What you wrote suggests what I think; that we should focus our money and efforts in places that will make a greater difference than restricting guns will. A firearm enthusiast does not a redneck with a firearm make. Three percent of the population already has concealed carry permits, and people aren't being randomly shot by those people. Limiting guns does not reduce violence, period, though creating self-driving cars will greatly reduce accidents and fatalities. So, that is yet another place to focus attention and money.
-
HOW DARE HE!
Any lunatic should be legally allowed to buy guns!
And yes, Texas just passed a law saying that mental hospitals CANNOT prohibit guns.
I was reading this, and I was like, WTF, is the Texas legislature itself a mental hospital full of nuts?
-
I just did an interesting thing:
I purchased an AR-15 pistol.
An AR-15 pistol is an AR-15 rifle with 2 difference...no butt stock and a barrel that is shorter than 16". When you fire it, there is less firepower and more noise/flash. If you put a buttstock on an AR pistol it is considered an SBR (Short Barreled Rifle) and possesion of this in California you'll go to jail and come out a felon. You can swap the short barrel (8", 10", etc) with a rifle-lenth barrel (16", 18", 20", etc) on the pistol and it becomes a rifle. It's that easy. I'll buy a 16" barrel an basically have 2 gun options, an AR pistol 10" and an AR rifle 16".
In California before Jan 1, 2015 you could purchase AR-15 pistols like most other firearms. After that date they can no longer be sold new from a store. They can not be bought from another person in another state. They can only be purchased from another California resident and be transferred through a gun shop. After Dec 31, 2016 California residents will not be able to purchase these at all. I will be stuck with it unless I choose sell it out of state. These types of pistols start at about $650+ anywhere in the US, but in California they (currently) start at about $1200+ because of supply/demand/changing laws/accessibility, etc. Since I paid $1300, it's doubtful I'll sell it out of state next year or later for half that price. There is a slight chance I'll resell it towards the end of this year if people continue to panic I can get $300+ profit. As a side note, an AR-15 rifle is still legal and can be bought new starting at about $750. Same exact firearm, longer barrel, half the price.
Why did I buy a firearm that a gun range won't let me fire at targets? Why did I buy a firearm that is ridiculously over priced? Why did I buy a firearm that isn't at the more practical end of the usability spectrum? I don't know. Because I can? I don't own any other firearms. It's never been shot. Has that new gun smell. Will look wicked if I could display it, which I can't. Now that I bought it I can worry about it rusting in the ocean air. Face it, I could have bought an AR rifle for half the price or 2 AR rifles for the same price. I paid a $600 premium for a barrel that is 8" shorter. Maybe I'm a representation of a typical California gun owner. Maybe I'm not. Maybe everyone should be afraid. Maybe not.
I can't wait to see what I'm going to do next.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
-
I can't wait to see what I'm going to do next.
Mass murder?
-
I can't wait to see what I'm going to do next.
If you like to throw money down the drain in dangerous ways... how about moving to a ridiculously expensive house in an area of San Francisco that is expected to be hit hard in the next inevitable earth quake?
It is fascinating to see how much correlation there is between the maps of property value and maps of risk for earthquake damage. Crazy ... :rolleyes:
-
It is fascinating to see how much correlation there is between the maps of property value and maps of risk for earthquake damage.
Young people didn't see the first 1980s Superman movie.
My favorite, though, was the nuclear power plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant) built on an earthquake fault.