Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gun Control

371 replies to this topic
Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#331

Posted 24 July 2016 - 09:55 PM Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 24 July 2016 - 10:18 PM.

Most Americans would agree.  US gun culture has it's problems.  But to ignore the extent to which the mainstream gun control movement is largely a political scapegoat for the cyclical violence enabled by the war on drugs also misses the point...because making the communities most impacted by gun violence safer is supposedly the point of our gun control movement.  So in it's political context, the current US gun control campaign has been led by a reductionist viewpoint as well.  And since fewer Americans have exposure to guns nowadays besides movies/video games, it's that much easier to misinform them and label any gun control skeptic as some NRA shill.

 

 

 

If US gun violence was a priority merely on the basis of its severity next to the rest of the developed world, then we would be combating a host of other public health issues/crisis that take way more American lives each year.  There's obesity/heart disease, drug addiction, depression, cancer,......the list goes on really.  Gun violence is just a sexier issue for politicians to engage.

  • Skeever likes this

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#332

Posted 05 August 2016 - 02:08 PM

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms when I have purchased them all legally (in the system), keep them stored in my house, either in a safe or ready for action under my bed, and have never felt the urge to kill anyone with any of them. To anyone saying that there is no reason to have a firearm at home, I tell you this: If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?
  • Skeever and Darth Absentis like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#333

Posted 05 August 2016 - 03:05 PM

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms

I don't recall anyone suggesting you should.

If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?

You could just strive to live in a society where the chance of an intruder being in your home is so infinitesimally small that the notion of having to keep a loaded firearm to hand "just in case" is absurd. The rest of the civilised world manages just fine.
  • Tchuck likes this

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#334

Posted 05 August 2016 - 04:10 PM

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms

I don't recall anyone suggesting you should.

If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?

You could just strive to live in a society where the chance of an intruder being in your home is so infinitesimally small that the notion of having to keep a loaded firearm to hand "just in case" is absurd. The rest of the civilised world manages just fine.

Yeah or invest the money on home improvements which would make it extremely unlikely an intruder when enter your home. Re-enforced doors, cameras and a security system all cost less than your average gun and safe combination. I know I would rather have them never in my house at all, than have to shoot it out with them. But then I also realize gun battles aren't glamorous and exhilarating like on the movies. People offer up this suggestion as if getting in a fun fight is as natural to them as Marshall Dylan and it's total BS.
  • sivispacem, Gummy  and Darth Absentis like this

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#335

Posted 05 August 2016 - 04:53 PM

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms

I don't recall anyone suggesting you should.

If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?

You could just strive to live in a society where the chance of an intruder being in your home is so infinitesimally small that the notion of having to keep a loaded firearm to hand "just in case" is absurd. The rest of the civilised world manages just fine.
Yeah or invest the money on home improvements which would make it extremely unlikely an intruder when enter your home. Re-enforced doors, cameras and a security system all cost less than your average gun and safe combination. I know I would rather have them never in my house at all, than have to shoot it out with them. But then I also realize gun battles aren't glamorous and exhilarating like on the movies. People offer up this suggestion as if getting in a fun fight is as natural to them as Marshall Dylan and it's total BS.
I never said I wanted to shoot someone. In fact, the simple idea of pulling the trigger on someone makes me feel sick to my stomach. But if I have to I will kill an intruder to protect my family.
Oh and sivis, you know as well as I do that so-called assault weapons are under siege by gun-grabbers. I happen to own a so-called "assault weapon" (an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle) and I really enjoy it, so I would rather not have to give it up. And what makes you think that I live in an area where I don't have to worry about crime? I'd rather have the peace of mind of a loaded 12-gauge than a "it can't happen to me" mindset.
  • Skeever likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#336

Posted 05 August 2016 - 05:25 PM

Oh and sivis, you know as well as I do that so-called assault weapons are under siege by gun-grabbers.

I'm not sure I agree, not that it's particularly relevant to the example of self-defence firearms given that semi-automatic centre-fire intermediate calibre rifles aren't actually that useful for it.

Perhaps if there was less anger amongst right-wing firearm groups at the prospect of more coherent licencing laws and training requirements people wouldn't suggest banning certain firearms.
  • Triple Vacuum Seal and Darth Absentis like this

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#337

Posted 05 August 2016 - 07:34 PM Edited by SagaciousKJB, 05 August 2016 - 07:36 PM.

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms

I don't recall anyone suggesting you should.

If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?

You could just strive to live in a society where the chance of an intruder being in your home is so infinitesimally small that the notion of having to keep a loaded firearm to hand "just in case" is absurd. The rest of the civilised world manages just fine.
Yeah or invest the money on home improvements which would make it extremely unlikely an intruder when enter your home. Re-enforced doors, cameras and a security system all cost less than your average gun and safe combination. I know I would rather have them never in my house at all, than have to shoot it out with them. But then I also realize gun battles aren't glamorous and exhilarating like on the movies. People offer up this suggestion as if getting in a fun fight is as natural to them as Marshall Dylan and it's total BS.
I never said I wanted to shoot someone. In fact, the simple idea of pulling the trigger on someone makes me feel sick to my stomach. But if I have to I will kill an intruder to protect my family.
Oh and sivis, you know as well as I do that so-called assault weapons are under siege by gun-grabbers. I happen to own a so-called "assault weapon" (an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle) and I really enjoy it, so I would rather not have to give it up. And what makes you think that I live in an area where I don't have to worry about crime? I'd rather have the peace of mind of a loaded 12-gauge than a "it can't happen to me" mindset.
My point is that with it he kind of money people spend on things like an AR15, they could fortify their home, get a security alarm service, and home owners insurance. All I which is a lot more useful than an AR15 especially considering you could get a 200 dollar military surplus rifle if virtually any caliber that would function the same. What good does an AR 15 in your safe do you when someone has just kicked your door in and stuck a gun in your face before you even got up off the couch? Then supposing you just carry it with you at all times, you're skill going to be f*cked by the element of surprise in the same scenario. So obviously cameras or even just a dog is worth more to alert you to danger than having a gun to react with is.

Now when it comes down to it though, I believe poor people need firearms more than middle class or the wealthy because they can't afford alarm service subscriptions, probably live in a house where they can't make improvements even if they could afford it, etc. In this circumstance, I can agree having a firearm for that last resort is merited but when we talk about the financial cost of other options I believe it demonstrates there's a habit for Americans to treat what should be a last resort as their first line of defense.

P.s.
I have actually had people break in to my house before, so I know a little first hand about the adrenaline factor. Grabbing a phone to call 911 even becomes a challenge!

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#338

Posted 05 August 2016 - 08:36 PM

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms

I don't recall anyone suggesting you should.

If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?

You could just strive to live in a society where the chance of an intruder being in your home is so infinitesimally small that the notion of having to keep a loaded firearm to hand "just in case" is absurd. The rest of the civilised world manages just fine.
Yeah or invest the money on home improvements which would make it extremely unlikely an intruder when enter your home. Re-enforced doors, cameras and a security system all cost less than your average gun and safe combination. I know I would rather have them never in my house at all, than have to shoot it out with them. But then I also realize gun battles aren't glamorous and exhilarating like on the movies. People offer up this suggestion as if getting in a fun fight is as natural to them as Marshall Dylan and it's total BS.
I never said I wanted to shoot someone. In fact, the simple idea of pulling the trigger on someone makes me feel sick to my stomach. But if I have to I will kill an intruder to protect my family.
Oh and sivis, you know as well as I do that so-called assault weapons are under siege by gun-grabbers. I happen to own a so-called "assault weapon" (an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle) and I really enjoy it, so I would rather not have to give it up. And what makes you think that I live in an area where I don't have to worry about crime? I'd rather have the peace of mind of a loaded 12-gauge than a "it can't happen to me" mindset.
My point is that with it he kind of money people spend on things like an AR15, they could fortify their home, get a security alarm service, and home owners insurance. All I which is a lot more useful than an AR15 especially considering you could get a 200 dollar military surplus rifle if virtually any caliber that would function the same. What good does an AR 15 in your safe do you when someone has just kicked your door in and stuck a gun in your face before you even got up off the couch? Then supposing you just carry it with you at all times, you're skill going to be f*cked by the element of surprise in the same scenario. So obviously cameras or even just a dog is worth more to alert you to danger than having a gun to react with is.

Now when it comes down to it though, I believe poor people need firearms more than middle class or the wealthy because they can't afford alarm service subscriptions, probably live in a house where they can't make improvements even if they could afford it, etc. In this circumstance, I can agree having a firearm for that last resort is merited but when we talk about the financial cost of other options I believe it demonstrates there's a habit for Americans to treat what should be a last resort as their first line of defense.

P.s.
I have actually had people break in to my house before, so I know a little first hand about the adrenaline factor. Grabbing a phone to call 911 even becomes a challenge!
Well, answer this, do you want your house to resemble a damn castle? Sorry, but I don't need to turn my house into a medieval fortification to protect myself when a firearm will suffice. And I love how you mentioned 911. If someone breaks into my house and I'm unarmed, I'll likely be dead or incapacitated long before the police arrive. That's why I own firearms- when seconds count, the police take minutes.
  • Skeever likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#339

Posted 05 August 2016 - 08:44 PM

I don't need to turn my house into a medieval fortification to protect myself when a firearm will suffice.

You have to be some kind of fantasist to genuinely believe that your average gun-owning American possesses either the competence or the capability to actually being a firearm to bear on an intruder successfully.

If someone breaks into my house and I'm unarmed, I'll likely be dead or incapacitated long before the police arrive.

In your bizarre fantasy land sure. In reality, pretty much the only time people ever get killed in home intrusions is if they intentionally confront the perpetrator. You're far less likely to actually survive being broken into if you come down, dick in hand, swinging firearm like you think you're Rambo.

And you're far less likely to get broken into in the first place if you've got proper high quality glass, a decent door with a high quality lock, and an alarm system. Burglaries are almost always crimes of opportunity, and if you're not low hanging fruit scrotes will just f*ck off somewhere else.

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#340

Posted 05 August 2016 - 08:56 PM

I don't need to turn my house into a medieval fortification to protect myself when a firearm will suffice.

You have to be some kind of fantasist to genuinely believe that your average gun-owning American possesses either the competence or the capability to actually being a firearm to bear on an intruder successfully.

If someone breaks into my house and I'm unarmed, I'll likely be dead or incapacitated long before the police arrive.

In your bizarre fantasy land sure. In reality, pretty much the only time people ever get killed in home intrusions is if they intentionally confront the perpetrator. You're far less likely to actually survive being broken into if you come down, dick in hand, swinging firearm like you think you're Rambo.
Do you honestly think that I would charge head on to meet an intruder? Wow sivis, under an advanced vocabulary you really have no idea what you're saying. For one, I would grab one of my guns, and get in a position where I'm overlooking the only entrance into my space. I wouldn't "Rambo" through my whole house to try and kill the intruder, although I imagine it would scare them half to death. And for all I know, the intruder could be a murderous psycho or a crazy methhead trying to kill me. And I like having a rifle or any other weapon in between us.
  • Caysle, feckyerlife and Skeever like this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#341

Posted 06 August 2016 - 02:57 AM

 

 

I don't need to turn my house into a medieval fortification to protect myself when a firearm will suffice.

You have to be some kind of fantasist to genuinely believe that your average gun-owning American possesses either the competence or the capability to actually being a firearm to bear on an intruder successfully.

If someone breaks into my house and I'm unarmed, I'll likely be dead or incapacitated long before the police arrive.

In your bizarre fantasy land sure. In reality, pretty much the only time people ever get killed in home intrusions is if they intentionally confront the perpetrator. You're far less likely to actually survive being broken into if you come down, dick in hand, swinging firearm like you think you're Rambo.
Do you honestly think that I would charge head on to meet an intruder? Wow sivis, under an advanced vocabulary you really have no idea what you're saying. For one, I would grab one of my guns, and get in a position where I'm overlooking the only entrance into my space. I wouldn't "Rambo" through my whole house to try and kill the intruder, although I imagine it would scare them half to death. And for all I know, the intruder could be a murderous psycho or a crazy methhead trying to kill me. And I like having a rifle or any other weapon in between us.

 

 

That's very unlikely, though. Unless the burglar is quite inexperienced and you happen to be a very light sleeper or is anticipating being burglarized every day, chances are you won't notice the intruder in your house until you come face to face with him. Say you go to the kitchen to get a glass of water and there you go. Do you always carry a gun with you when waking up during the night time? If you don't, you better start doing so, just as a precaution, you know. I've had my apartment broken into when I was living in Vancouver. Was up at night watching a movie with the gf in the bedroom, movie ended and I went into the kitchen to get some water, nearly back to the bedroom when I noticed someone was there. Luckily he wasn't trying to rob the place and was "just" trying to flee the police for having broken his restraining order when trying to visit his son at his ex's house. If I did have guns in that situation, they'd be locked in the safe while he was there confronting me, and I wouldn't be able to reach them in time without trying to subdue him through other means. Which would be very unlikely as he was twice my size.

 

In any case, my point is that you are far more likely to be surprised by a burglar inside your home without having close access to your gun unless your gun is on you at all times. So having your guns locked safe and sound in your bedroom will count for squat. It is far, far more reasonable to increase security in your home as that will reduce the chance of being broken into, which would avoid the dangerous situation altogether. In the event you are able to notice someone is in your house before facing them, then I hope you do have some form of military training to be able to deal with that situation. Stress will make you make mistakes. And when facing someone potentially armed, you don't want to make mistakes.

  • SagaciousKJB, sivispacem and ExTerminator like this

TheKillSwitch69
  • TheKillSwitch69

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2016
  • United-States

#342

Posted 06 August 2016 - 04:47 PM

Well, here is my opinion on gun control:

I believe that gun control doesn't solve a thing, it only disarms law-obiding citizens. Criminals get their guns off of the street, not from a local gun store. I know that this is kinda off topic, but Guns don't kill people, it is the person who uses the weapon, the criminals and the islamic state just give law obiding gun owners a bad name, and all the liberals could do is point the finger. Like I said, gun control isn't the problem, it is the people who possess them.

MY OPINION
  • Skeever and ULPaperContact like this

ULPaperContact
  • ULPaperContact

    Proti všem tyranům, pro boha a zemi

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2015
  • United-States

#343

Posted 06 August 2016 - 05:06 PM

I hate it when the powers that be act like banning guns will solve crime. If someone wants you dead, or is mentally unstable, they'll find a way to kill you. Not to mention the sprawling black market.

  • feckyerlife, Skeever and TheKillSwitch69 like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#344

Posted 06 August 2016 - 05:38 PM

Almost nobody actually supports banning firearms outright. I've never understood why so many people attempt to portray the agenda of anyone who wants to see a more coherent firearms policy in such a way.

The idea "guns aren't the problem, it's the people that possess them" isn'tan argument against gun control, it's an argument for it. Firearm regulation seeks to make it harder for the types of people mentioned to gain access to firearms.

The US has a particular issue with murder, especially firearm related. Now I don't know if bringing in firearm laws like those elsewhere would resolve this or whether the horse well and truly has bolted, but these issues don't manifest themselves elsewhere in the developed world.

It's also worth noting the majority of murders aren't premeditated. In the case of most murder victims, nobody "wants them dead"- they're simply victims of circumstance, emotional outbursts or people who just snap. Restrictions on firearms won't prevent incidents like these from occurring entirely, but easy access to guns does enable them.
  • Tchuck likes this

ULPaperContact
  • ULPaperContact

    Proti všem tyranům, pro boha a zemi

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2015
  • United-States

#345

Posted 06 August 2016 - 10:55 PM

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -Ben Franklin

 

With what I've seen over the years, this is true. If you give the government an inch in the matter, they'll attempt to take a mile.

 

On an unrelated note,

Spoiler

  • Street Mix and Skeever like this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#346

Posted 07 August 2016 - 02:27 AM

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -Ben Franklin

 

With what I've seen over the years, this is true. If you give the government an inch in the matter, they'll attempt to take a mile.

 

On an unrelated note,

Spoiler

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

So, how do you suppose the matter ought to be fixed? Every year you have mass shootings in the US, which don't happen elsewhere in the world specially where gun access is restricted. Gun violence in the US is always at exceedingly high levels, which doesn't happen elsewhere in the world specially where gun access is restricted. 

 

You or the other dude said "guns aren't the problem; PEOPLE are the problem". Very well. So, how do we stop those people from having access to guns?

If only there was a term for that... CONTROLLING certain people's access to GUNS. Hmm. It's right there on the tip of my tongue. 

 

Gun Control does not mean disarming the population nor banning guns for life. If that's what you think it means, then you are completely ignorant of the subject and should do more research. What Gun Control is is literally controlling access to guns, making it difficult for certain people to have access to them, discouraging people from getting them, increasing the prices for it in the black market and what not. It goes more in detail than that, but we've covered that in the past 12 pages of this thread anyway, and frankly repeating ourselves when someone completely ignorant comes to the topic is quite a pain.

  • Bartleby likes this

Bartleby
  • Bartleby

    Current Mentos Freshness: 65%

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2004
  • None

#347

Posted 10 August 2016 - 08:32 PM Edited by Bartleby, 10 August 2016 - 08:37 PM.

I believe that gun control doesn't solve a thing, it only disarms law-obiding citizens. Criminals get their guns off of the street, not from a local gun store.

 

I'm not trying to pick on you in particular here, but I hear this on occasion and I feel like this is a false narrative from the get-go. It isn't as if there are two distinct types of people, criminals vs. law-abiding citizens, each clearly identifiable from the other. It also isn't as if one cannot be one and then become the other, or even perhaps both at the same time if we're looking at it in more ways than one. It also isn't as if a law-abiding citizen can't have mental health problems, make a mistake in judgment, want to hurt someone in an unforeseen fit of rage, or have any other circumstances take place that could lead to people getting hurt or killed. It also is not necessarily the case that a criminal in one respect is a criminal across the board, and will not respect any other laws.

 

The real world is a lot more complicated than us vs. them, and all too often such a thing doesn't really exist. Maybe in the movies, but this ain't Death Wish, ya know? The bad guys don't generally strut around in groups with headbands and baseball bats; in fact, perhaps even presupposing "bad guys" at all may be a step too far in the first place, if we're going to say it's only them who do this sort of thing. I just feel that this statement is far too simplistic and really boils down to a mindset of "let's not even attempt to fix this problem if it's going to be inconvenient for people who have done nothing wrong".

 

Edit: Also this is my 9,000th post. Woohoo.

  • El Diablo, Tchuck, Twang. and 5 others like this

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#348

Posted 22 August 2016 - 03:07 PM

 

 

I don't need to turn my house into a medieval fortification to protect myself when a firearm will suffice.

You have to be some kind of fantasist to genuinely believe that your average gun-owning American possesses either the competence or the capability to actually being a firearm to bear on an intruder successfully.

If someone breaks into my house and I'm unarmed, I'll likely be dead or incapacitated long before the police arrive.

In your bizarre fantasy land sure. In reality, pretty much the only time people ever get killed in home intrusions is if they intentionally confront the perpetrator. You're far less likely to actually survive being broken into if you come down, dick in hand, swinging firearm like you think you're Rambo.
Do you honestly think that I would charge head on to meet an intruder? Wow sivis, under an advanced vocabulary you really have no idea what you're saying. For one, I would grab one of my guns, and get in a position where I'm overlooking the only entrance into my space. I wouldn't "Rambo" through my whole house to try and kill the intruder, although I imagine it would scare them half to death. And for all I know, the intruder could be a murderous psycho or a crazy methhead trying to kill me. And I like having a rifle or any other weapon in between us.

 

As much as non-gun owners like to carelessly downplay the added home security of a firearm in responsible hands, this idea of shooting it out with an intruder is overly romanticized. If you are genuinely concerned about an intruder, then your home defense plan should be reliant on a large dog breed with a guard/attack heritage in tandem with a firearm.  Dogs will often do a lot more than a gun.


Waifus_2
  • Waifus_2

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: A week ago
  • Brazil

#349

Posted A week ago

the gun control doesn't change a thing, a lot of country are example of this and in country that guns are allowed, the citizen is not obligated to have a one but the good citizen who wants to defend the private property can do this and these gun control just suffocate people self defense 


 

 

 

I don't need to turn my house into a medieval fortification to protect myself when a firearm will suffice.

You have to be some kind of fantasist to genuinely believe that your average gun-owning American possesses either the competence or the capability to actually being a firearm to bear on an intruder successfully.

If someone breaks into my house and I'm unarmed, I'll likely be dead or incapacitated long before the police arrive.

In your bizarre fantasy land sure. In reality, pretty much the only time people ever get killed in home intrusions is if they intentionally confront the perpetrator. You're far less likely to actually survive being broken into if you come down, dick in hand, swinging firearm like you think you're Rambo.
Do you honestly think that I would charge head on to meet an intruder? Wow sivis, under an advanced vocabulary you really have no idea what you're saying. For one, I would grab one of my guns, and get in a position where I'm overlooking the only entrance into my space. I wouldn't "Rambo" through my whole house to try and kill the intruder, although I imagine it would scare them half to death. And for all I know, the intruder could be a murderous psycho or a crazy methhead trying to kill me. And I like having a rifle or any other weapon in between us.

 

As much as non-gun owners like to carelessly downplay the added home security of a firearm in responsible hands, this idea of shooting it out with an intruder is overly romanticized. If you are genuinely concerned about an intruder, then your home defense plan should be reliant on a large dog breed with a guard/attack heritage in tandem with a firearm.  Dogs will often do a lot more than a gun.

 

 

 

 

Of course not, someone who wants to defend their property/ or his life can do well with a gun and moreover you can't take a dog to every place

 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#350

Posted A week ago

the gun control doesn't change a thing, a lot of country are example of this

All else being equal, there's a strong correlation between stringent firearm licensing laws and safer societies. It's misleading to pretend that less guns = safer society, but better regulation and vetting of owners and mandatory training absolutely do.

and in country that guns are allowed, the citizen is not obligated to have a one but the good citizen who wants to defend the private property can do this

Most nations that permit firearms for personal defence (which is largely down to the national law) enforce stringent regulations on ownership and training. Nothing about background checks or mandatory training prevents law abiding citizens from possessing firearms for personal defence.

you can't take a dog to every place

You can take dogs more places than you can firearms, even in the US.

ULPaperContact
  • ULPaperContact

    Proti všem tyranům, pro boha a zemi

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2015
  • United-States

#351

Posted A week ago

 

 

All else being equal, there's a strong correlation between stringent firearm licensing laws and safer societies. It's misleading to pretend that less guns = safer society, but better regulation and vetting of owners and mandatory training absolutely do. This would work in a perfect society. However, if you look at the UK, the homicide rates per 100,000 are higher than the US, but they don't use guns. Acid, hammers, etc. are used instead. Also, guns can always be smuggled across borders (unless you're an island, like Australia). However, this is not a perfect world, and gun control will not do anything but hinder those who get them legally. We don't need new laws, we need to reinforce the ones we have.

 

Most nations that permit firearms for personal defence (which is largely down to the national law) enforce stringent regulations on ownership and training. Nothing about background checks or mandatory training prevents law abiding citizens from possessing firearms for personal defence. Except who will pay for mandatory training? The government? Because a college student who just scraped up enough for a hi-point will not be able to afford it, and if the government pays for it, then that's adding more to a long list of taxes we already have.

 

You can take dogs more places than you can firearms, even in the US. Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel the dog argument is irrelevant. Feel free to tell me if I am.

 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#352

Posted A week ago

However, if you look at the UK, the homicide rates per 100,000 are higher than the US

Categorically, unquestionably, hilariously wrong.

UK- 0.92 intentional homicides per 100,000 citizens per year.
US- 4.88 intentional homicides per 100,000 citizens per year.

You aren't just wrong by a little bit. The murder rate in the US is FIVE TIMES that of the UK. Five times. It's simply unfathomable that you could come up with such utterly delusional drivel.

gun control will not do anything but hinder those who get them legally.

Think you're going to need to substantiate this with evidence. Can you cite a single example of introduction of firearms legislation impacting the availability of firearms for law abiding citizens whilst simultaneously not impeding criminal's access? I'd be amazed if you could.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, legislation designed to restrict access to firearms for those with criminal convictions or previous history of mental illness has a significant downward pressure of firearm related death rates.

Except who will pay for mandatory training? The government?

No, the citizens. If they can afford a couple of hundred dollars for a handgun, they can afford a $40 half day safety course. But really we're talking outliers here. The majority of firearm owners possess multiple weapons so the cost of training is entirely negligible.
  • El Diablo, Tchuck, RedDagger and 1 other like this

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#353

Posted A week ago

 

However, if you look at the UK, the homicide rates per 100,000 are higher than the US

Categorically, unquestionably, hilariously wrong.

UK- 0.92 intentional homicides per 100,000 citizens per year.
US- 4.88 intentional homicides per 100,000 citizens per year.

You aren't just wrong by a little bit. The murder rate in the US is FIVE TIMES that of the UK. Five times. It's simply unfathomable that you could come up with such utterly delusional drivel.

gun control will not do anything but hinder those who get them legally.

Think you're going to need to substantiate this with evidence. Can you cite a single example of introduction of firearms legislation impacting the availability of firearms for law abiding citizens whilst simultaneously not impeding criminal's access? I'd be amazed if you could.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, legislation designed to restrict access to firearms for those with criminal convictions or previous history of mental illness has a significant downward pressure of firearm related death rates.

Except who will pay for mandatory training? The government?

No, the citizens. If they can afford a couple of hundred dollars for a handgun, they can afford a $40 half day safety course. But really we're talking outliers here. The majority of firearm owners possess multiple weapons so the cost of training is entirely negligible.

 

 

I'm not exactly taking ULPaperContact's side on this, but...

 

"Can you cite a single example of introduction of firearms legislation impacting the availability of firearms for law abiding citizens whilst simultaneously not impeding criminal's access?"

 

Yeah, the Brady Bill.  After Hinckley shot Regan, they changed the federal firearms act to state that anyone who has been involuntarily held for a 72 hour period to be a "prohibited person", and unable to pass an ATF background-check that all Federal Firearms Licensed dealers must use before selling a firearm.  So, basically in a nutshell, if you've ever been depressed and someone thought you might kill yourself for an example, and you had to undergo a 72 hour hold, you then become a "prohibited person" in the eye's of the ATF thanks to the Brady Bill.

 

Meanwhile, in states with "private sales", there is no way for a person to know if they're selling to a criminal, or a mentally ill "prohibited person", so the Brady Bill is certainly more effective IN SOME STATES at keeping hands out of law abiding citizens--though they may be "mentally ill"--than it is effective at keeping them out of the hands of criminals. Consequently, it's also good at turning law abiding citizens into criminals, because more often than not they don't even realize they're not allowed to own a gun.  Now of course, this might not be the case if states stopped allowing private sales, but just because a state legislates against the private sales doesn't mean they don't still happen.

 

"No, the citizens. If they can afford a couple of hundred dollars for a handgun, they can afford a $40 half day safety course. But really we're talking outliers here. The majority of firearm owners possess multiple weapons so the cost of training is entirely negligible."

 

This is an unfortunate position that a lot of people take, forgetting that Americans view gun ownership as a right and not a privilege one is supposed to save one's pennies for. The idea for needing a gun is based upon needing it for self-defense, though I believe their merit in this regard is pretty limited.  However, guns in America are much cheaper than a couple hundred bucks; you can get a revolver in a pawn shop to put under your pillow for $60 if it's all dinged up, and there's plenty of Chinese made $100 guns. If you lived in a hovel, with paper thin windows and doors that barely locked, you might feel like you need a lucky charm to sleep too. I don't really agree with the logic, but I can see why some people do.

 

Now, I bring up the cost because when you end up becoming a "prohibited person" via the Brady Bill, there's a system through which you basically must purchase your rights back. You have to "petition the court", but of course that is not free.  So you have to spend a couple hundred bucks just to buy back your ability to buy a $60 gun to put under your pillow and make you feel safe.  Let's just ignore that statistically that makes you more likely to get shot or shoot yourself. The point is more in the principle that this is supposed to be a "right" that in every way a person must basically pay to exercise. I'm not so sure that we really should regard gun ownership as a right in this country, but I know we're definitely not treating it as a right with the current state of the law, whether we claim we still do or not.

 

I think it's very scary to include mental illnesses under the criteria of things that can preclude someone from owning a gun. There's an estimate that 60 million Americans have an undiagnosed mental illness, so if the gun-grabber conspiracy theorists really wanted to look at a viable and plausible gun-grab strategy, then legislating away gun ownership based on "mental health" should bring chills down their spine.

 

It's certainly ironic, because people more often now than ever want to throw the mentally ill under the bus.  "It's not lax gun laws, it's just crazy people getting guns when they should be in nut houses."  People are ready and willing to totally overlook the rights of the mentally ill and scapegoat them, when in reality mentally ill people are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrator.  With that in mind, you'd think that the "pro self-defense" crowd would be advocating MORE for them to be able to own guns ( provided a doctor deem them safe of course ), but you don't see that very much.  It's too useful of a scapegoat to just blame "crazy people" for mass shootings, and they just thrown them right under the bus to deflect against meaningful discussions about more regulations. It only takes one  "nut" Adam Lanza killing 26 kids to make people forget about the other 10,000 gun homicides a year perpetrated by "normal" people.

 

Our gun laws are just such a mess that you can be a "prohibited person" in one state, and then go across to the state over and not be flagged on an ATF background check.  Or, you can be ordered to "outpatient" treatment instead of "inpatient" and not be flagged on an ATF background check.  Both of these situations have happened, and have lead to shootings when background checks should have stopped them from getting a gun.  In the meantime, the same restrictions have kept misdemeanor drug offenders from owning guns, people suffering with depression or bipolarism from owning guns, etc. You really open up a whole new can of worms discussing whether these people should really be prevented from owning guns.  

 

There's also another side... We realize that convicted felons, and batsh*t psychotics who want to kill people, don't care whether or not they buy a gun on the black market. It's hard to argue against the fact that gun laws only effect the people actually willing to follow the law, so by definition they only stop "law-abiding" citizens.  Of course that is just semantics, and people generally mean "good guys" when they say law-abiding, they generally mean "sane" people.

 

But really... Should a hard-working adult who has a misdemeanor charge for pot from when he was a teenager be labeled not safe enough to own a gun? Because he is according to the ATF. Should a guy who lost his wife or loved-one and became over-stricken with grief and hospitalized for 72 hours be considered not safe enough to own a gun decades later when he's retired and wants to buy his dream-rifle? Again, he is according to the ATF.  These things actually happen.  I had to learn the process of how to petition the court from a Navy veteran whose wife wanted to target shoot with him, but had been subjected to a 72 hour watch when her son died in a drunk driving accident. Meanwhile, I had a friend who couldn't go target shooting with me because he'd been charged with possession.  Oh lord, don't let those dangerous nut cases get guns!

 

The irony of me saying that though, is that a simple gun-safety course, training programs, evaluations, etc....  They would actually ensure the ability for "good people" to own guns.  Instead of just looking at someone's "background" and making a prejudiced decision, what if a person could hand a doctors note saying, "This person is not a danger to themselves or anyone else," to a certified firearms training instructor, and then go through a course that proves it? That would actually ensure people who are safe, who are "good" could have guns. I think realistically though, when you consider the cost of the American healthcare system, and the way we enjoy privatizing things, it would quickly turn into quite a costly endeavor to be "certified" in this manner. Just think about how much it costs for some people to get a driver's license, and there's no need for a mental health evaluation for that.

 

I think that gun owners and 2A supporters are actually mutually exclusive groups.  A lot of gun owners don't give a rat's ass if someone who is depressed can't get a gun; it's not their problem, and they're more than happy to have someone to scapegoat to deflect legislation away from their own guns. When it comes to the idea of the 2nd Amendment as a right, however, that's where it becomes a much more entangled mess to navigate because any bit of meaningful restriction could be construed as a violation of that right. It's this conflict that has lead to such little compromise that the only legislation that is able to pass is bad legislation that's more symbolic than effective.

  • Skeever and ULPaperContact like this

Chiari
  • Chiari

    It only happens if it doesn't matter

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#354

Posted A week ago

 

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, legislation designed to restrict access to firearms for those with criminal convictions or previous history of mental illness has a significant downward pressure of firearm related death rates.

 

I don't own a gun but I believe that the US does restrict gun ownership for criminals. Since criminal records are public information it should be mandated that all firearm sales include a background check. As for the second part about mental illness, there's some debate for this. In my opinion, a personal health history is just that, personal. A person shouldn't have to authorize the government, or anyone else, to review their medical records to participate in what is an American right.

 

Either way, these aren't fail safe measures. There are so many criminals out there who have never been convicted and so many unstable people who haven't been diagnosed.

 

 

No, the citizens. If they can afford a couple of hundred dollars for a handgun, they can afford a $40 half day safety course. But really we're talking outliers here. The majority of firearm owners possess multiple weapons so the cost of training is entirely negligible.

 

This is kind of a weird comparison because it doesn't value time. Half of my day far exceeds $40, so taking a gun safety course is a waste of time and would really only serve to teach me something I already know: that guns can be extremely dangerous.

 

However, as a more broad point, I believe gun control in the United States can't work because there are simply too many guns in circulation. Gun control measures that pry into someone's personal life can go way too far on the surveillance end and the confiscation of guns is impossible. It's also very easy to acquire a firearm illegally. There is a high chance of finding a gun in any home or car you break into in America, and if you want a gun to commit murder it's a safe assumption you'll commit a lesser crime like burglary and B&E.

  • ULPaperContact likes this

ULPaperContact
  • ULPaperContact

    Proti všem tyranům, pro boha a zemi

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2015
  • United-States

#355

Posted A week ago

 

 

 

I don't own a gun but I believe that the US does restrict gun ownership for criminals. It does. If you have been convicted of a felony you are not allowed to purchase a firearm.

 

 

 


 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#356

Posted A week ago

I don't own a gun but I believe that the US does restrict gun ownership for criminals. Since criminal records are public information it should be mandated that all firearm sales include a background check.

Which is all well and good when it comes to purchasing firearms from registered dealers, but doesn't work with private sales, straw purchases or sales at shows, or through online brokers. The law as it currently stands criminalises firearm purchase and ownership for convicted felons but actually does very little to prevent them obtaining firearms.

Most firearm related crimes are committed with illegally owned grey market weapons. Not with stolen guns, but those purchased from private sellers.

As for the second part about mental illness, there's some debate for this. In my opinion, a personal health history is just that, personal.

I'm of the view that, in this respect, the protection of citizens trumps the right to bear arms. If someone represents a significant danger to others due to mental illness then I see absolutely no legitimate justification for permitting them to own firearms.
 

Either way, these aren't fail safe measures. There are so many criminals out there who have never been convicted and so many unstable people who haven't been diagnosed.

No measures are failsafe, but enforcing restriction on private firearm sales would probably go a long way toward limiting access. The practicalities of implementing it I'm not sure about- presumably you'd have to effectively ban private purchases and have dealers across intermediaries which would be a huge change, but that's how many other countries manage firearm sales.
 

This is kind of a weird comparison because it doesn't value time. Half of my day far exceeds $40

A fair point, but chosing to own a gun is a voluntary decision. In this respect I see it as analogous to driving; in order to legally drive without restrictions you have to have received training and undergo a test where you meet a minimum standards of competence and demonstrate at least a minimum level of knowledge. In the US, holders of concealed or open carry permits who have gone through mandatory training are significantly less likely to be involved in fatal shootings, either accidental or intentional.
 

However, as a more broad point, I believe gun control in the United States can't work because there are simply too many guns in circulation.

If we're talking about control measures that a seed cultural or societal change then I'm inclined to agree, but that doesn't mean that more can't be done to reduce gun crime. Other countries can and do manage very large numbers of firearms in legal circulation, numbers per capita not hugely dissimilar to that of the US. So it can be done. Whether it's practical to do in the US is another question.

Gun control measures that pry into someone's personal life can go way too far on the surveillance end and the confiscation of guns is impossible.

I don't think measures need to be any more intrusive than in other areas of life where they're readily accepted. There are already provisions for things like medical evaluations for the DMV to grant driving licenses, or for employers. Constitutionally enshrined or not, firearm ownership is a a voluntary choice and there's nothing fundamentally incompatible about measures such as background checks or wait times.

Confiscation isn't impossible. It's not likely to be easy but other nations have accomplished it with reasonable success. Australia and the UK for instance. Mind you, these are countries where firearm registration is mandatory that don't have the ungodly paranoia around government created lists that the US seems to.

It's also very easy to acquire a firearm illegally. There is a high chance of finding a gun in any home or car you break into in America, and if you want a gun to commit murder it's a safe assumption you'll commit a lesser crime like burglary and B&E.

Which stands to reason in cases of premeditated murder by existing criminals, or murders that take place during the commission if other crimes, but not so much when it comes to spousal or familial murders, workplace killings or non-premeditated "snap" shootings. Killings of these types are also significantly more likely to take place with legally owned weapons. Simple measures such as enabling the confiscation of firearms from people who are under criminal investigation for things like spousal abuse strike me as obvious.

I'm not exactly taking ULPaperContact's side on this, but...
 
"Can you cite a single example of introduction of firearms legislation impacting the availability of firearms for law abiding citizens whilst simultaneously not impeding criminal's access?"
 
Yeah, the Brady Bill.

The Brady Bill perfectly typifies everything that is wrong with the US approach to gun control legislation. Whilst some laws, typically state dependent Ines such as waiting periods, are eminently sensible, federal laws like the Brady Bill are heavy-handed contradictory messes. I completely agree that blanket bans on ownership for anyone with a history of any kind of mental illness or watch periods, no matter the circumstances, are absurd. I agree that blanket bans for people with misdemeanor or minor criminal charges that are decades old are absurd. The thing is, this kind of legislation was never really designed to address the fundamental issues of firearm control. I'd go as far as to say it's not even really firearm legislation.

It's simply reactionary nonsense designed to make it look like government is doing something meaningful on the issue whilst failing to address the issues at hand.

ULPaperContact
  • ULPaperContact

    Proti všem tyranům, pro boha a zemi

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2015
  • United-States

#357

Posted A week ago

 

I don't own a gun but I believe that the US does restrict gun ownership for criminals. Since criminal records are public information it should be mandated that all firearm sales include a background check.

Which is all well and good when it comes to purchasing firearms from registered dealers, but doesn't work with private sales, straw purchases or sales at shows, Actually, shows are required to do background checks as well. or through online brokers. Online brokers are required to do background checks, too. The law as it currently stands criminalises firearm purchase and ownership for convicted felons but actually does very little to prevent them obtaining firearms.

Most firearm related crimes are committed with illegally owned grey market weapons. Not with stolen guns, but those purchased from private sellers. Citation needed.

 

I'm of the view that, in this respect, the protection of citizens trumps the right to bear arms. I disagree. Good thing that's your opinion. If someone represents a significant danger to others due to mental illness then I see absolutely no legitimate justification for permitting them to own firearms.
 

Either way, these aren't fail safe measures. There are so many criminals out there who have never been convicted and so many unstable people who haven't been diagnosed.

No measures are failsafe, but enforcing restriction on private firearm sales would probably go a long way toward limiting access.  The practicalities of implementing it I'm not sure about- presumably you'd have to effectively ban private purchases and have dealers across intermediaries which would be a huge change, but that's how many other countries manage firearm sales. The US isn't 'many other countries'. If it's private property, people can sell it to whoever they want. However, as it currently stands, if the buyer is caught with that gun still registered in the seller's name, that's trouble right there.
 

 

A fair point, but chosing to own a gun is a voluntary decision. In this respect I see it as analogous to driving; in order to legally drive without restrictions you have to have received training and undergo a test where you meet a minimum standards of competence and demonstrate at least a minimum level of knowledge. In the US, holders of concealed or open carry permits who have gone through mandatory training are significantly less likely to be involved in fatal shootings, either accidental or intentional. This isn't related to driving. It should be the choice of the buyer whether or not they want to go through training. Just a difference of opinion there.
 

 



Gun control measures that pry into someone's personal life can go way too far on the surveillance end and the confiscation of guns is impossible.

I don't think measures need to be any more intrusive than in other areas of life where they're readily accepted. There are already provisions for things like medical evaluations for the DMV to grant driving licenses, or for employers. Constitutionally enshrined or not, firearm ownership is a a voluntary choice and there's nothing fundamentally incompatible about measures such as background checks or wait times.

Confiscation isn't impossible. It's not likely to be easy but other nations have accomplished it with reasonable success. Australia and the UK for instance. Mind you, these are countries where firearm registration is mandatory that don't have the ungodly paranoia around government created lists that the US seems to. The 'paranoia' is justified. And yeah, a confiscation is impossible. I'm sure most of the sheep would turn them in, but the people who read the constitution (namely the second amendment) would realize that the point of the text is to keep the security of a free state. When gun confiscation happens, that's a complete violation of the text.

 



 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#358

Posted A week ago

Actually, shows are required to do background checks as well.

Not true. Only registered firearm dealers selling at gun shows are obliged to provide background checks. Private sellers at gun shows, who often deal significant numbers of firearms but who aren't federally registered, don't.

Online brokers are required to do background checks, too.

Again, not true. Online sellers that are federally registered dealers do, but broker services that act as intermediaries between private sellers and private buyers are not dealers, and background checks are only typically required for purchases across state boundaries. Some federally licensed dealers may sell through these services but services like GunBroker are typically used by private sellers.

Citation needed.

http://www.bjs.gov/c.../pdf/fv9311.pdf

From those statistics:
11% of felons using firearms in the commission if crime obtained them through legal means, such as purchased directly from gun stores
37% of felons using firearms in the commission of crime obtained them from friends if family members.
40% obtained them illegally, on the black market or through theft.

A private sale of a firearm to a convicted felon or someone else who cannot legally own a firearm, or a friend or family member providing a firearm, or someone who obtains one through technically legal means such as straw purchasing but whom cannot legally own a firearm, matches the criteria I outlined. Sadly, statistics on the legality of purchases, rather than the method, are exceptionally hard to come by.

I disagree. Good thing that's your opinion.


It is absolutely my opinion, but I daresay the vast majority of people would agree with me that protecting the citizenry from dangerous individuals trumps the right of those individuals to own firearms. Do you really hold the right to bear arms above the right to life?

The US isn't 'many other countries'.

This is frankly a terrible argument, because there's nothing fundamentally exceptional about the US which precludes it from implementing legislation like that of other countries.
 

This isn't related to driving. It should be the choice of the buyer whether or not they want to go through training.

Why? I see no reason why firearms should be exceptional in this sense.
 

The 'paranoia' is justified.

Explain.

I'm sure most of the sheep would turn them in, but the people who read the constitution (namely the second amendment) would realize that the point of the text is to keep the security of a free state.

Except the Second Amendment says nothing about the legitimacy of restriction on what types of firearms can be owned, or whether they can be confiscated under certain conditions. Numerous historic federal firearms acts have been challenged on their constitutionality and been found by the supreme court to be constitutional. The SC is the arbiter of the constitution, the views of individuals citizens are effectively irrelevant. And if it's constitutional to ban the mentally ill or criminals from owning firearms, or ban citizens from owning automatic weapons without NFA exemption status, or ban sound suppressors without ATF registration, or ban destructive devices (which it is) I see no reason other laws in this vein would necessarily be unconstitutional.

When gun confiscation happens, that's a complete violation of the text.

No it isn't. Gun confiscation has already happened in the US, notably with fully automatic weapons. And it's been found to be constitutionally acceptable.

Can you cite the specific clause of the Second Amendment that forbids firearm seizure?

And what do you have to say about your earlier statistical faux Pas? Are you going to defend your claim that the UK murder rate is higher than that if the US?

ULPaperContact
  • ULPaperContact

    Proti všem tyranům, pro boha a zemi

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2015
  • United-States

#359

Posted A week ago

 

 


Online brokers are required to do background checks, too.

Again, not true. Online sellers that are federally registered dealers do, but broker services that act as intermediaries between private sellers and private buyers are not dealers, and background checks are only typically required for purchases across state boundaries. Some federally licensed dealers may sell through these services but services like GunBroker are typically used by private sellers. I'm sorry, I thought your were referring to places like GunBroker, where the seller must send the firearm to an FFL to get the background check.

Citation needed.

http://www.bjs.gov/c.../pdf/fv9311.pdf

From those statistics:
11% of felons using firearms in the commission if crime obtained them through legal means, such as purchased directly from gun stores
37% of felons using firearms in the commission of crime obtained them from friends if family members.
40% obtained them illegally, on the black market or through theft.

Thanks. Wasn't trying to argue, I actually wanted a citation.

I disagree. Good thing that's your opinion.


It is absolutely my opinion, but I daresay the vast majority of people would agree with me that protecting the citizenry from dangerous individuals trumps the right of those individuals to own firearms. Do you really hold the right to bear arms above the right to life? It's not the right to life, that's a dramatization. But in the grand scheme of things, I hold the right to bear arms over security-theater like some of the things you propose.

 


 
 

The 'paranoia' is justified.

Explain. Really? After everything that's been released about the NSA, a little paranoia is justified.



 


 


SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#360

Posted A week ago

 

I don't own a gun but I believe that the US does restrict gun ownership for criminals. Since criminal records are public information it should be mandated that all firearm sales include a background check.

Which is all well and good when it comes to purchasing firearms from registered dealers, but doesn't work with private sales, straw purchases or sales at shows, or through online brokers. The law as it currently stands criminalises firearm purchase and ownership for convicted felons but actually does very little to prevent them obtaining firearms.

Most firearm related crimes are committed with illegally owned grey market weapons. Not with stolen guns, but those purchased from private sellers.

As for the second part about mental illness, there's some debate for this. In my opinion, a personal health history is just that, personal.

I'm of the view that, in this respect, the protection of citizens trumps the right to bear arms. If someone represents a significant danger to others due to mental illness then I see absolutely no legitimate justification for permitting them to own firearms.
 

Either way, these aren't fail safe measures. There are so many criminals out there who have never been convicted and so many unstable people who haven't been diagnosed.

No measures are failsafe, but enforcing restriction on private firearm sales would probably go a long way toward limiting access. The practicalities of implementing it I'm not sure about- presumably you'd have to effectively ban private purchases and have dealers across intermediaries which would be a huge change, but that's how many other countries manage firearm sales.
 

This is kind of a weird comparison because it doesn't value time. Half of my day far exceeds $40

A fair point, but chosing to own a gun is a voluntary decision. In this respect I see it as analogous to driving; in order to legally drive without restrictions you have to have received training and undergo a test where you meet a minimum standards of competence and demonstrate at least a minimum level of knowledge. In the US, holders of concealed or open carry permits who have gone through mandatory training are significantly less likely to be involved in fatal shootings, either accidental or intentional.
 

However, as a more broad point, I believe gun control in the United States can't work because there are simply too many guns in circulation.

If we're talking about control measures that a seed cultural or societal change then I'm inclined to agree, but that doesn't mean that more can't be done to reduce gun crime. Other countries can and do manage very large numbers of firearms in legal circulation, numbers per capita not hugely dissimilar to that of the US. So it can be done. Whether it's practical to do in the US is another question.

Gun control measures that pry into someone's personal life can go way too far on the surveillance end and the confiscation of guns is impossible.

I don't think measures need to be any more intrusive than in other areas of life where they're readily accepted. There are already provisions for things like medical evaluations for the DMV to grant driving licenses, or for employers. Constitutionally enshrined or not, firearm ownership is a a voluntary choice and there's nothing fundamentally incompatible about measures such as background checks or wait times.

Confiscation isn't impossible. It's not likely to be easy but other nations have accomplished it with reasonable success. Australia and the UK for instance. Mind you, these are countries where firearm registration is mandatory that don't have the ungodly paranoia around government created lists that the US seems to.

It's also very easy to acquire a firearm illegally. There is a high chance of finding a gun in any home or car you break into in America, and if you want a gun to commit murder it's a safe assumption you'll commit a lesser crime like burglary and B&E.

Which stands to reason in cases of premeditated murder by existing criminals, or murders that take place during the commission if other crimes, but not so much when it comes to spousal or familial murders, workplace killings or non-premeditated "snap" shootings. Killings of these types are also significantly more likely to take place with legally owned weapons. Simple measures such as enabling the confiscation of firearms from people who are under criminal investigation for things like spousal abuse strike me as obvious.

I'm not exactly taking ULPaperContact's side on this, but...
 
"Can you cite a single example of introduction of firearms legislation impacting the availability of firearms for law abiding citizens whilst simultaneously not impeding criminal's access?"
 
Yeah, the Brady Bill.

The Brady Bill perfectly typifies everything that is wrong with the US approach to gun control legislation. Whilst some laws, typically state dependent Ines such as waiting periods, are eminently sensible, federal laws like the Brady Bill are heavy-handed contradictory messes. I completely agree that blanket bans on ownership for anyone with a history of any kind of mental illness or watch periods, no matter the circumstances, are absurd. I agree that blanket bans for people with misdemeanor or minor criminal charges that are decades old are absurd. The thing is, this kind of legislation was never really designed to address the fundamental issues of firearm control. I'd go as far as to say it's not even really firearm legislation.

It's simply reactionary nonsense designed to make it look like government is doing something meaningful on the issue whilst failing to address the issues at hand.

 

 

That's precisely what it is, and pretty much what the Federal Firearms Act in general was. It took until Oswald killed Kennedy with a mail-ordered rifle for us to think, "Maybe we shouldn't let people order guns out of a mail-order catalog without a background check."  I mean some other things were going on (Black Panthers roaming the streets with rifles, the Texas University sniper, etc.) but it was really this event that was the clincher much in the same way the attempted Regan assassination brought about the Brady Bill.

 

Which brings me to my next point...

 

ULPaperContract, you say, "However, as it currently stands, if the buyer is caught with that gun still registered in the seller's name, that's trouble right there."

 

This is correct only in a small number of circumstances, largely depending upon state laws.  There actually is no federal requirement to register long-guns, i.e. rifles and shotguns or anything with a barrel over a certain length. Some states have their own registry, but according to the federal firearms act, only hand-guns are required federally to be "registered" to any one individual.

 

There's actually only a handful of states that require registration on long-guns, and until very recently my state wasn't one of them. Allowed private sales too.  You could buy a rifle at a yard sale and there was nothing at all illegal with it.  When it comes down to it, some rifles end up with such a long chain of ownership, that it does little good for them to actually know who the original buyer on the ATF form was either.  For all intents and purposes, rifles are basically not tracked by the government in several different states.

 

To add to that, handguns are treated much different in terms of waiting periods too.  Federally, all handguns have a waiting period, but for rifles it is again up to the state. In mine you can still go to WalMart and buy any rifle or shotgun and be out the door in less than an hour. Technically, they can only delay the purchase for 72 hours, so if the ATF hasn't called back and said, "Don't sell it to that guy!" they might even go ahead and sell it anyway. WalMart probably not, but there are a lot of "FFL" dealers who are not as scrupulous. This is how some infamous shooters lately have obtained their firearms.

 

 

If our "federal" firearm regulations were actually more unified there wouldn't be such a mess of discrepancies to create this kind of nightmare.  As it stands though, the only time there is any willing compromise for laws to be passed is after some huge event like a president being killed, or attempted to be killed.  It's also important to realize that the Brady Bill took a long time to be passed.  Regan was shot in the early 80s, and the Brady Bill didn't get passed until the mid 90s.

  • Tchuck and sivispacem like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users