Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gun Control

375 replies to this topic
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

#361

Posted 4 weeks ago

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.

As I noted earlier, GunBroker doesn't require background checks for private purchases made in-state. It's only if you purchase from a dealer via GunBroker, or if the purchase is made across state lines.

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.

So preventing people who pose a very real threat to other citizens from obtaining firearms easily and without background checks is "security theatre"? Right-o.

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

How on earth are the two remotely analogous? It's a complete non sequitur. Let's not forget that the US already maintains lists of licensed individuals, both state and federal, on all manner of things.
  • Tchuck likes this

Darth Absentis
  • Darth Absentis

    here is wondering how long a member title actually could be

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2014
  • Belgium

#362

Posted 3 weeks ago

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.
Until it goes wrong.
That being said...i think having a loaded gun under your bed even when not in it is overkill and potentially dangerous though, but when in it, better safe then sorry.

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

#363

Posted 3 weeks ago

Until it goes wrong.


The number of people killed in home invasion type incidents is vanishingly small, even zero in some countries and some years. You're massively more likely to be killed by bees.
  • Tchuck likes this

Darth Absentis
  • Darth Absentis

    here is wondering how long a member title actually could be

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2014
  • Belgium

#364

Posted 3 weeks ago

Until it goes wrong.

The number of people killed in home invasion type incidents is vanishingly small, even zero in some countries and some years. You're massively more likely to be killed by bees.
True, but it is just not all about death and i doubt those countries with 0 incidents are that common or have a big population.

I personally think that when for an example dealing with what i call human pest invading your home or property it is already worth it to deffend it with anything you can, especially if said invaders are damaging said property.

Though i do agree just fortifying and securing your homes and properties with non lethal purely protective anti-theft methods, if someone with the right mentality wants to have a gun on him for protection this should certainly be allowed.

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

#365

Posted 3 weeks ago

I don't fundamentally object to self defence firearms when their possession is proportionate and warranted. Like in states such as South Africa where the risk of home invasion violence means that home defence weapons are proportionate.

In countries such as the UK there are two or three home invasion murders that don't involve perpetrators known to the victim per year. It's such a tiny proportion of incidents that it's basically irrelevant.

Argonaut
  • Argonaut

    what did he mean by this

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#366

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by Argonaut, 3 weeks ago.

Though i do agree just fortifying and securing your homes and properties with non lethal purely protective anti-theft methods, if someone with the right mentality wants to have a gun on him for protection this should certainly be allowed.


There are a large variety of non-lethal self defense weapons available that will do the job in place of a cartridge-based firearm right up to those based on blanks (although regulation of their design would be needed to avoid the situation had in the UK some years ago with easily-convertible Baikal blank-firing pistols). It is remarkable, really, to think how a requirement for firearms training as part of a right to bear arms would make you better able to defend yourself with a given firearm than that which posits a right to bear any arms as the basis for self defense.

I do presuppose here though a context of countries where it isn't exactly proportionate- overall, the right to have a gun for self defense proportionally scales with the context you're in.
 

The number of people killed in home invasion type incidents is vanishingly small, even zero in some countries and some years. You're massively more likely to be killed by bees.

Furthering this idea alongside the asinine "SHTF" / fighting against tyrannical government concept makes bank for firearms manufacturers at the expense of sense, even if the second amendment seems impossible to touch in the US.

 

All this aside...

 

I do think there is a case for repealing the 'pistols ban' (Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997) in the UK on the basis that it isn't the thing which keeps them out of the possession of criminals and that it therefore negatively affects legal shooters. When I say it isn't the thing, it isn't to say it hasn't been the thing which has kept pistols out of the possession of criminals because the handover that occurred when it was passed inevitably had an effect to a degree which isn't relevant to this caveat I'm laying out. However, there is nothing to say that a concealable handgun can't easily be created by someone with a FAC for a crime due to how the overwhelming majority of allowed .22lr semi automatic firearms use a blowback mechanism, meaning that the barrel of the gun could be cut right up to the tip of a loaded round without consequence. A common occupant of police firearms lockers in America is a cut-down .22lr Ruger 10/22 with it's stock cut and taped up and barrel down to a concealable length, illustrating how a feature ban for some of the long-barreled revolvers and pistols on sale in the UK today wouldn't amount to much.

 

If this (where handguns aren't really banned to anyone with access to Handy Households) is the case, and it is difficult to measure out crimes committed by those with legal firearms, indicating how practically non-existent it is*, then it is reasonable to suggest that it is our tough rules for acquiring a firearms certificate that keeps criminals from having handguns and not this amendment. Therefore, I think it should be repealed- still leaving only .22lr caliber handguns allowed, as a start- so that legal firearms owners can have abit more variety to their target practice, amongst other things.

 

 

*I recognize this could seem like weak sauce or otherwise debatable, which is why I left the argument til last. Statistics relating to firearm usage, violence etc post gun control amendments here in the UK seems to be the first port of call for people looking to argue against our laws and often leaves them spitting and spluttering with shoddily-formed arguments as has already been demonstrated in this thread.


Darth Absentis
  • Darth Absentis

    here is wondering how long a member title actually could be

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2014
  • Belgium

#367

Posted 3 weeks ago

I don't fundamentally object to self defence firearms when their possession is proportionate and warranted. Like in states such as South Africa where the risk of home invasion violence means that home defence weapons are proportionate.

In countries such as the UK there are two or three home invasion murders that don't involve perpetrators known to the victim per year. It's such a tiny proportion of incidents that it's basically irrelevant.

Say that to the ones that got killed...o right, you can't, they are dead.

and again, it is not just about people getting killed.

If it takes guns to avoid criminals getting away with anything, so it should be.

 

Also it is pretty irrelevant if the perpetrator is known or not in some cases, if not most.

I do even seem to remember that you are more likely to get killed by someone you know then someone you don't, though to be fair i am not that sure about that last thing.

 

 

Though i do agree just fortifying and securing your homes and properties with non lethal purely protective anti-theft methods, if someone with the right mentality wants to have a gun on him for protection this should certainly be allowed.


There are a large variety of non-lethal self defense weapons available that will do the job in place of a cartridge-based firearm right up to those based on blanks (although regulation of their design would be needed to avoid the situation had in the UK some years ago with easily-convertible Baikal blank-firing pistols). It is remarkable, really, to think how a requirement for firearms training as part of a right to bear arms would make you better able to defend yourself with a given firearm than that which posits a right to bear any arms as the basis for self defense.

I do presuppose here though a context of countries where it isn't exactly proportionate- overall, the right to have a gun for self defense proportionally scales with the context you're in.
 

 

 

 

Indeed, yet sadly enough those kind of non-lethal guns are often even more forbidden then the lethal ones in general.

Also i am honestly not sure if it is per se worth the effort to make sure criminals should survive an encounter with a prepared victim.


RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Next DLC Thread Page 3000 Winner
    Best Ledby 2016
    Most Helpful 2016
    Quotable Notable Post of the Year 2016 ["sup"]
    Best Crew 2016 [The Daily Globe]
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2016
    Draw Contest Grand Prize 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Best General Topic 2015 [GTAForums Newbie Guide 2.0]
    Helpfulness Award

#368

Posted 3 weeks ago

If it takes guns to avoid criminals getting away with anything, so it should be.

It doesn't, and that's the point. America shows nicely how chucking guns at the problem makes it worse; there's lots of ways to reduce criminal activity, and relaxing gun control isn't one of them.
  • Tchuck likes this

Darth Absentis
  • Darth Absentis

    here is wondering how long a member title actually could be

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2014
  • Belgium

#369

Posted 3 weeks ago

 

If it takes guns to avoid criminals getting away with anything, so it should be.

It doesn't, and that's the point. America shows nicely how chucking guns at the problem makes it worse; there's lots of ways to reduce criminal activity, and relaxing gun control isn't one of them.

 

The USA is how ever a terrible terrible choice for an example to use it for either in an argument to support guns or to be against it.

 

In no way am i defending the gun regulations there, they blatantly suck.

But if people have the right mental qualifications they should get their right to own any gun they want and even get the right for concealed carry in public places, even if they do not associate with law enforcement, military or such.

 

Also the idea of banning certain specific guns in general i find quite ridiculous, especially when looking what they are trying to ban.

For an example, they ban .50 caliber firearms or bigger, but they just allow any person to own a semi-automatic cheap pistol.

Though thanks to the corrupted gun lobby statistics on it are scare, i am pretty sure the firearms responsible for the most deaths and accidents are gonna be cheap firearms chambered in pistol cartridges.


RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Next DLC Thread Page 3000 Winner
    Best Ledby 2016
    Most Helpful 2016
    Quotable Notable Post of the Year 2016 ["sup"]
    Best Crew 2016 [The Daily Globe]
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2016
    Draw Contest Grand Prize 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Best General Topic 2015 [GTAForums Newbie Guide 2.0]
    Helpfulness Award

#370

Posted 3 weeks ago

The USA is how ever a terrible terrible choice for an example to use it for either in an argument to support guns or to be against it.

How? It's a first world country with lax gun laws and there's plenty of individual cases to showcase what happens when you do that, you can't just toss it away when it doesn't fit what you're saying.
  • Tchuck likes this

Darth Absentis
  • Darth Absentis

    here is wondering how long a member title actually could be

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2014
  • Belgium

#371

Posted 3 weeks ago

 

The USA is how ever a terrible terrible choice for an example to use it for either in an argument to support guns or to be against it.

How? It's a first world country with lax gun laws and there's plenty of individual cases to showcase what happens when you do that, you can't just toss it away when it doesn't fit what you're saying.

 

Like said, there are first of all not really a great amount of statistics on it to get some good facts up thanks to the gun lobby.

 

Second, if you support lax gun control it pretty much seems to be not a great example, because the few statistics that are available suggest what we all can agree on, that their way of regulating things just sucks.

and if anti-gun...well, like said, there are barely any laws prohibiting guns to be owned there.

Not sure how to explain it well, but here is an attempt: the laws there are so bad that it is kinda like saying that just because to much sugar is bad for you, it does not mean sugar should be banned.

Ridiculous example, but i can not really explain it better.

 

But to be more clear, i personally think the ideal kind of gun restrictions should consist out of:

 

-Mental health checks every year

 

-there should be seperate mental checks for people who want:

        - to shoot a gun at the gunrange and put their guns in a locker there

        - to take their gun home and keep them with them for home defense 

        - to take their gun with them at public places in concealed carry fashion

 

-there should be laws as to how people store their guns, meaning:

        -people have to store their gun in a gun locker/locked away in a safe place with certain safety specifics with the key in their possession at all time.

        -....unless they are actually at the house/property, they should be allowed to carry firearms with them.

 

-there should be people controlling if those guns are properly stored.

 

-all guns should be registrated/lisenced so people know were guns are expected.

 

-No single specific kind firearm should be prohibited to be owned, .50 cal, bigger, automatic...should all be the same

 

-extra taxes on guns that are bellow a certain cost, as to avoid poor criminals getting their hands on it.

 

-when a gun is lost it should be authorities should be notified.

 

-destructive devices/ammo with explosive components in the actual bullets should be threated by law just like any regular ammo, unless their explosive power goes beyond a certain margin.

 

-those destructive devices beyond a certain grade should be registered as they were a gun and there should be evidence when they are used up.

 

-evidence of buying ammo should be saved by both the buyer and the ones that sell it, just as an extra countermessure 

 

 

Something like that sounds ideal in my book.


Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

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

#372

Posted 3 weeks ago

I don't fundamentally object to self defence firearms when their possession is proportionate and warranted. Like in states such as South Africa where the risk of home invasion violence means that home defence weapons are proportionate.

In countries such as the UK there are two or three home invasion murders that don't involve perpetrators known to the victim per year. It's such a tiny proportion of incidents that it's basically irrelevant.

 

How do you account for "micro demographics" with increased rates of home intrusion though? If you look at America as a whole, it might seem like home invasions really aren't as common as they are in South Africa perhaps.  However, if you focus from America as a whole on say, one neighborhood in Detroit, and take the scope down from annual to say, a couple of months with a home-invasion streak, then how are you going to convince anyone based on statistics that home invasions are not "common" in their area?

 

One of the biggest issues with gun culture, not gun control, is that Americans view guns as lucky charms, talismans that ward off evil and bad guys.  More is made about having a gun than using one.

 

I think another part of the problem is various self-proclaimed "responsible gun owners" who read the NRA's five rules and then assume they're safe, and that they will never ever experience an Accidental Discharge. In fact, they become arrogant and elitist about it and say things like, "It's not an accident, it's negligence," and change the whole terminology because they convince themselves that mistakes can't happen if you're following the rules. Of course this ignores a basic, undeniable concept known for thousands of years: To be human is to err.  Of all the Darwin Award winners who have shot themselves in a parking lot while re-loading magazines, I am absolutely certain that at least a handful were self-proclaimed "responsible gun owners".

 

Nevertheless, I hear a lot about home invasions stopped with firearms around here, or about people being killed in them.  At what point do you decide such events are too frequent or infrequent to justify owning a firearm to prepare for such incidents?  For most people I don't think the answer is pragmatic, but designed to comfort.

 

Here's two different scenarios...

 

1. Your neighbor was just robbed at gun-point in the early-morning hours, police have no suspects in custody, and there's no way of telling if they might come back. So you borrow a gun from your family or friends, and you sleep, sit, eat, and drink with it within arm's reach for a few days. Things blow over, and you get tired of carrying a gun around with you in your house, and return it.

 

2. Your neighborhood has experienced a string of break-ins while your neighbors aren't home.  No injuries, no assaults, but lots of property being stolen.  You don't actually know anyone who personally has been victimized, but you worry about "What if I was home one day and they broke in."  You just want to have some sense of peace of mind, so you buy a handgun, and you keep it loaded and stick it under your pillow, or behind your bedroom door, somewhere "close" by so you can sleep. Eventually, you get so comfortable, you forget that it's even there under your pillow or behind your door.

 

Number 1 is one what I would call a legitimate cause for concern and a reasonable response.  Meanwhile, Number 2 is what actually happens most often.  There's more "shoebox guns" responsible for accidental home-shooting deaths than actual self-defense guns, and it's because of the distinct difference in purpose.  

  • Darth Absentis likes this

jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#373

Posted A week ago Edited by jpm1, A week ago.

i live in France, in Europe, and i don't want to judge our american friends. but i really don't get that 'if you take my gun, you take my freedom' thing. i mean here in France, the number of homicides is extremelly low compared to the population. i find having laws allowing you to wear handguns in the streets something really insane. i mean you have cops for that. you can have all the hunting weapons you want, why the heck do you also want auto, semi-auto, and handguns weapons. what's the prob the aliens, the soviet, or a black cell of the government is planning to invade your homes. can't you see that slaughters like columbine, happen only in the US. i mean for me having a defense gun at home is just insanity. and what if you beloved son or daughter find the keys to your lockout. i can't get that permanent distrust thing


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#374

Posted A week ago

That's because American constitution allows you the right to bear arms in order to defend yourself from a tyrannical government. It had the best intention at the time, what with America being born out of a revolution against a tyrannical government, and made sense since people could gather and defend their property/themselves. And then you had a whole century of violence with the American frontier expanded, where guns were instrumental in protecting yourself against invaders/native americans/outlaws, so owning guns made a lot of sense.

 

And then we come into modern times where gun ownership has a varied number of reasons. Some of it are just excuses in order to make yourself feel powerful, or to make you feel safe, or to give you some measure of control. Due to the heritage of guns in American culture, it became normalized. But in regards to the original intention of the constitution, it is a completely moot point. For all the guns a civilian can own, the government and its military will still be infinitely more powerful. 


jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#375

Posted A week ago

yeah that argument comes often onto the table. it's true that sometimes the US government did really horrible things. like experimenting drugs on whole villages, or on hospitals. but that era is no more


Shermhead
  • Shermhead

    ryder nigga

  • Members
  • Joined: 4 weeks ago
  • Mars

#376

Posted 9 hours ago

i find having laws allowing you to wear handguns in the streets something really insane. i mean you have cops for that. you can have all the hunting weapons you want, why the heck do you also want auto, semi-auto, and handguns weapons. what's the prob the aliens, the soviet, or a black cell of the government is planning to invade your homes. can't you see that slaughters like columbine, happen only in the US. i mean for me having a defense gun at home is just insanity. and what if you beloved son or daughter find the keys to your lockout. i can't get that permanent distrust thing

1) Cops don't always show up on time.

 

2) Why the heck do we want fully and semi auto guns? Because they're fun. Ever shot a gun before? It's a cool experience.

 

3) Be a responsible parent and tell your kids that guns aren't toys, they're deadly weapons. Hide the keys to your gun safe in a place only you know where to look.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users