Guns should be legal in American, because guns are cool

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

randomsix:

It is a fallacy to assume that you will never need something simply because you do not need it now.

It's also a fallacy to assume you're definitely going to need it - since "You don't need it now", the only way in which "I need it" sounds in any way credible is that you're downright convinced you're definitely going to need it at some point. Oh, and you know, how school shootings are referred to as "isolated incidents"? Should I pull that card on LA riots? Well if it weren't on the table already, I mean.

Mr.Cynic88:

Why isn't "it is cool" a rational argument? Why produce fireworks? Why sell elaborate katanas? Humans should have the right to rationally pursue their interests, as long as they are not specifically hurting somebody else.

Well, because it's not a rational argument, a rational argument would weigh all the aspects of a thing in addition to its "coolness"; such as usability, purpose, cost efficiency...

Maybe stemming from not being one with tons of disposable income, but it comes across as very irrational to me to buy something "because it's cool".

the clockmaker:
Because from where I am standing all I am doing is putting forth an opinion, while you are trying to make authoritative statements about something that you clearly know nothing about.

I'm going to take this as a joke, and since you're Australian, where you have really tight gun laws. How do you in anyway have the higher ground on debating gun laws than someone who uses them on a weekly basis?

I mean, c'mon, I use Hoppes #9 as cologne for Christ Sake, you can't get any more firearm enthusiast than that.

A- the Taliban insurgency is in anyway successful.

It was, anyone who has been able to nearly twenty years against both the Soviets and the US and keep them at a stand still is pretty damn successful.
[qoute]B- That Americans can just pick up their guns and become Muj[/quote]
About %50-%60 of private gun owners are Veterans, most of which have been dealing with Muj. And I can bet that a lot of them have knowledge of how they work and how to apply it if need be.

C- That it is in any way a desirable fucking thing.

It isn't. You think any of us aside from the tin foil hats want to start something like that? We don't.

And if anything, I am an Armchair MP.

Still in that Armchair.

Me- Increased firearms legislation is on balance a good thing
You- If you so much as fucking try people like me would burn this place to the ground
Me- A- No you won't and B- That's a terrible fucking idea
You- I know, so if you don't want people like me to burn this fucking place to the ground, don't even try.
?Not seeing the proving of your point here, is your point that gun owners are inherently violent right wing militia nuts, because I don't think your average gun owner is fucked in the head enough to start gunning for uniforms the second a piece of legislation that they don't like passes the floor.

SNIP

Ask any gun owner if they think keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is a good idea, 99.9% are going to say yes.

Wanting to ban anything what so ever, standard capacity magazine (high capacity clips), a telescoping stock (shoulder thing that goes up/folding butt), a barrel shroud or flash hider and bayonet lug for example. You're going to get a big fucking no for all of them but Elmer Fudd.

Look, we can all agree that people with mental issues, criminal records, and or are a danger to themselves or others should not be allowed to own firearms.

On the other hand, a lot of us feel that we should be allowed to have the freedom to own whatever we want. A lot of us have taken up target shooting, IDPA shooting, skeet, three gun and hunting. Which, can be done (aside from IDPA, that's handguns only), with those scary black "assault weapons".

And then you have those guys who buy them solely to turn them into Safe Queens or just ogle them.

Gun Control in the US is literally the definition of "feel good legislation", just like that War on Drugs. It was passed because we all needed to feel a bit safer from those nasty and violent crack addicts. And big surprise, those crack addicts have not gone away.

Remember that first Assault Weapons Ban back in 1994? [1]A lot of guns were banned under that piece of law. And yet, things like Columbine still happened, with firearms that were illegal. Gun Control might work in places like Australia, England, or Canada. Because firearms are not as ingrained in those cultures as ours. Besides, the whole "gun crime" thing is blown entirely out of proportion. Out of 30,000 deaths involving firearms every year, all but 8,000 are caused by negligence, suicide, and deaths caused by police shootings.

Now 8,000 people, that's a large number when you think about it. But you have to take into account that the US has 315 million people. Do you know what kind of percentage that is when compared to the population of the US? It's about 0.0002~ percent. Yes, only 0.0002~ of the US population is killed by guns annually.

Why do we need to ban anything when the numbers are that low? Even drunk driving fatalities are higher than that!

Smagmuck_:

I'm going to take this as a joke, and since you're Australian, where you have really tight gun laws. How do you in anyway have the higher ground on debating gun laws than someone who uses them on a weekly basis?

A- I use them very often. I use them professionally. and
B- We are not talking about holding a gun and disassembling it, we are talking about mounting a long term successful insurgency. Something that you clearly know nothing about and
C- You are Australian therefore know nothing? Hooray for prejudice!
D- Still have not explained how I am an armchair anything

I mean, c'mon, I use Hoppes #9 as cologne for Christ Sake, you can't get any more firearm enthusiast than that.

Because liking something makes you knowledgeable about that thing. Good policy mate.

It was, anyone who has been able to nearly twenty years against both the Soviets and the US and keep them at a stand still is pretty damn successful.

Note that you are missing a verb they have been able to ___________ for nearly twenty years, and I think that the fact that you can't even explain what they have been doing all that time is important.
Also, what goals have they achieved?

About %50-%60 of private gun owners are Veterans, most of which have been dealing with Muj. And I can bet that a lot of them have knowledge of how they work and how to apply it if need be.

Psst, mate, when I gave you a list of reasons why a US insurgency is different to an Afghan or Iraqi one, the 'lets ignore' was a rhetorical device, you weren't actually supposed to ignore that shit. Also, being trained in counter-insurgency is not the same as being trained in insurgency. To give a comparison, learning to use an anti-tank weapon does not teach you to drive a tank.

It isn't. You think any of us aside from the tin foil hats want to start something like that? We don't.

Then stop threatening it if you don't get your way in a democratic environment.

Still in that Armchair.

It was a joke sweetheart, lighten up.

Ask any gun owner if they think keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is a good idea, 99.9% are going to say yes.

good, now we have agreed that legislation is necessary and just move onto the how.

Wanting to ban anything what so ever,

because compromise is for pussies, amiright?

standard capacity magazine (high capacity clips), a telescoping stock (shoulder thing that goes up/folding butt), a barrel shroud or flash hider and bayonet lug for example. You're going to get a big fucking no for all of them but Elmer Fudd.

because hey, I am pro legislation, I must not know what a telescoping stock is, right, because if I knew anything about guns, I must agree with you.

Look, we can all agree that people with mental issues, criminal records, and or are a danger to themselves or others should not be allowed to own firearms.

Again good, question of how. I posted a list of proposals that didn't involve any banning the other day, and it was shot down simply because it stated that someone should have a reason to own their gun.

On the other hand, a lot of us feel that we should be allowed to have the freedom to own whatever we want.

Nope, that is way too fucking broad and places way too much danger to the community.

A lot of us have taken up target shooting, IDPA shooting, skeet, three gun and hunting. Which, can be done (aside from IDPA, that's handguns only), with those scary black "assault weapons".

See, opinion amongst the hunters that I know is that if you need an Armalite patterned rifle to hunt deer, you are shitty hunter. On top of this, if you want a rifle for target shooting, why the fuck do you need the right to walk down the street with it slung over your shoulder on the way to the corner shop.

And then you have those guys who buy them solely to turn them into Safe Queens or just ogle them.

Back into the bullshit, it is cool argument.

Gun Control in the US is literally the definition of "feel good legislation", just like that War on Drugs. It was passed because we all needed to feel a bit safer from those nasty and violent crack addicts. And big surprise, those crack addicts have not gone away.

Because guns cause addiction and affect your mental state?

Remember that first Assault Weapons Ban back in 1994? [1]A lot of guns were banned under that piece of law. And yet, things like Columbine still happened, with firearms that were illegal.

because a shitty job was done enforcing the law

Gun Control might work in places like Australia, England, or Canada.

can I just say genuine thanks, for admitting that, because a lot of people on your side seem to think that they are obligated to call Australia a rape camp where you can't go down the street without being assaulted and where there are large scale massacres without firearms.

Because firearms are not as ingrained in those cultures as ours.

Well mate, that is something that you guys should be working on. I mean, jim crow was ingrained as well, but we all know 'its our culture' does not work as a blanket defence

Besides, the whole "gun crime" thing is blown entirely out of proportion. Out of 30,000 deaths involving firearms every year, all but 8,000 are caused by negligence, suicide, and deaths caused by police shootings.

Now 8,000 people, that's a large number when you think about it. But you have to take into account that the US has 315 million people. Do you know what kind of percentage that is when compared to the population of the US? It's about 0.0002~ percent. Yes, only 0.0002~ of the US population is killed by guns annually.

Why do we need to ban anything when the numbers are that low? Even drunk driving fatalities are higher than that!

Please see the post I made earlier re: why cars are not a good example here. And I still count victims of negligence, ie where a child has found a parents weapon and played with it or someone who was allowed ot buy a firearm without any training or someone who shot someone while out hunting because they never had a course in firearm safety as victims of firearms.

Smagmuck_:

Ask any gun owner if they think keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is a good idea, 99.9% are going to say yes.

Why do we need to ban anything when the numbers are that low? Even drunk driving fatalities are higher than that!

But it's always "those other morons" who fuck shit up, never "me". That's the thing. 99.9% percent of drivers will say they're good drivers, just everyone else is shit. Then get hammered one night after a bachelor party, sit behind the wheel and only manage to not kill anyone on their way by sheer dumb luck.

Look, I know gun owners largely consider themselves responsible, but at least those who actually threaten to shoot up the place if a firearms ban goes into effect sure as hell aren't because it's not fucking responsible to shoot up the place out of spite, and even exercising such a thought will raise the little "it's not safe to be around this person" flag in my head.

A responsible gun owner will hand over the gun if a ban goes into effect. Grudgingly, maybe, yes, but threatening to kill someone for "tryin ta take mah gunz" is. not. fucking. responsible. behavior.

And before you ask me why I didn't respond to the rest of your post; It's because it has nothing to do with me or with what I had to say.

Smagmuck_:
I'm going to take this as a joke, and since you're Australian, where you have really tight gun laws. How do you in anyway have the higher ground on debating gun laws than someone who uses them on a weekly basis?

Because he lives in a place where people saw sense behind guns, and as a result can look from a much better perspective than someone's who's used to the crazyness, doublethink and the violence of a gun culture.

the clockmaker:

Xan Krieger:
I think the way it should be is that the people should be able to hold the government by the balls. They should know if they try to take too much power it will end horribly. If the people are armed with crossbows they can't do that. It's all about keeping the government in check (and being able to defend yourself and your property).

But that is too far dependent on a united populace. Fuck mate, even Hitler had the support of a fair whack of the populace right up until the reds kicked down his front door. If I agree with the government and you do not, which one of us is the people, fuck, lets say you agree with the government and I do not, same question. On top of that, a system wherein the national command authority rose out of a violent movement by the populace is going to be heavily weighted towards those who excel in the application of violence; this is why so many countries see military or militia leaders take power after a rebellion, this is why the rule of law fails so often after a revolution and this is why the taboo on governmental violence fades in the wake of one. Once the militia becomes the power, they are unlikely to revert to free and open trials after seeing their cause so buoyed by the at will application of violence to those that are a threat to 'liberty'.

And this raises a further question, when does a threat to 'liberty' actually constitute, because at the start of the debate it was jackboots on the national mall, a few threads ago it became any legislation that discusses regulation of firearms and now I am wondering how long it is before anyone who even talks about that legislation is deemed a threat to these fringe groups. Note that I am not calling all firearm owners militia men, but I am saying that those who wish to overthrow the democratically elected government of their nation due to legislation that they disagree with are fringe groups.

Besides, the 'people should not be afraid of their government, a government should be afraid of the people' is a false dichotomy, neither party should be in fear of the other. The people should be able live their lives and the government should be free in creating the framework for them to do so without fear of some fuckhead who thinks that he is a Muj just because he has a firearm gunning them down.

Ultratwinkie:

1. 1920-1930 America was much more willing to let things slide. keep in mind prohibition in America was helped by religion, that banning alcohol as "the commandment from god." The modern world isn't the same, this isn't 1920 any more. Why? Because ideas and what is considered acceptable has changed. You are now less and less able to use religion as a crutch. A lot of things have changed and standards have gotten higher.

Methamphetamine, criminalised in 1983. check.

To hold America to its 1920s standards is to hold Australia to its penal colony standards.

implying that Australia has developed at half the speed that the US has

2. You conceded that you had no actual plan. That's what I wanted.

did you even read the rest of the post? I said that no, I do not have a step by step plan, you know why, because that is incredibly in depth and would likely be somebodies full time job.

3. Not necessarily, because the reason they CAN steal from us is their income from drugs. Income we have done nothing about, and have instead glorified. Since no one in America wants to deal with gangs, the gangs have free reign.

Since the cops can't do much about the drug problem any more, its up to the political system now.

Oh yeah, and its not "thinking" its pretty much fact.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/16/fbi-says-gang-infiltrators-stealing-military-weapons-for-sale-on-u-s-streets/

The FBI have said this for 3 years now.

mungkin that has something to do with your ineffective recruit screening process.

You seem to think that I and others are of the mind that if we regulate, (not ban) firearms, then everything will immediately become better, this is nonsense, firearm legislation is one facet of the dozens of other issues that need addressing, it just so happens that as this one is a sticking point, people are more obsessed with it.

4. The I-X amendments of the constitution are not so much law but the general ideas, basic rights. Thats why its called the bill of rights. Ideas that are widely believed in and will only be taken out when the ideas no longer believed in. One of the most basic and better ideas was the 5th. Culturally, the 5th is what America considers a basic right, much like a right to life. It is what Americans consider the bare minimum.

never generalise. You know what the one thing that you can say 'Americans' do is, that is hold an American citizenship. From what I can see, there is still no conflict with the fifth amendment other than your insistence that 'it just does okay'. And dude, passed by legislators, argued by judges and kept in records with other laws, it is a mother fucking law. Just because it happened in your super special country does not put it above legislation passed in other nations.

America cannot even think of not having the any of the rights given by the 5th amendment. Anything less is considered barbaric.

hooray for calling countries that don't let you leave your weapon unattended on a counter in a house with kids barbaric

Suspending the 5th, even partly, is still throwing it away.

hooray for thinking that amending a law (which you have still not shown that we need to do) throwing it away

There is no "ends justify the means" here.

hooray for ignoring the masses of fucked up shit (a fair whack of which I agree with) which was done and is being done by the US under exactly that mentality. I mean, sure you could argue that that mentality is in lesser degrees than in other nations. You would be wrong, just not as bull-shitty as the statement that you just made

In American culture, that is considered barbaric.

hooray for the vaguely racist idea that nations that don't conform with your (imaginary) idea of America are barbaric and hooray for your treatment of the US as some shangri la that foreigners simply don't understand, which is nonsense because A- We are all exposed to US culture and news on a daily basis and B- I used to fucking live there.

The constitution can be changed, but the bill of rights is the part no one fucks with, and for good reason. Any benefit from suspending rights will be nullified by the negative effects.

Show me some actual negative effects, stops saying you cannot change it because it will be changed.

GunsmithKitten:

Considering that confiscating handguns will be even less of a Herculean labour than somehow making all of rural America able to have police protection and fast response times, I'm counting on that happening and not the latter.

this is not the wild west, if I can get a reasonable response time in rural Vic and Rural NT, it can occur in Rural Ohio.

But make no mistake, if it happened, I'd surrender my firearm. Prison would be a lingering and fright filled death even more so than dying at the hands of some psycho.

I have to say, I would not be surprised if you found away to bring a gun into prison.

Thus, I'd pile on the barricades even deeper and simply become a shut in. I'm not going out there naked.

and that is unfortunate. Now I do not mean this as a point in any way, I see this as removed from the debate that we are having now, but have you talked to someone about these fears, because while there are dangers in the world (I got chased by an angry gang (though I still insist that it was a mob, far too many people to be a gain) in a South African township once) you are clearly letting your fears control your life.
I mean I know what it is like to feel like some malevolent power wants to wipe you out. After black Saturday, when we lost people that we knew, when mates lost houses and others lost lively hoods, when one of the towns that I considered almost a second home was wiped off of the map, when the emergency services were unable to stop the inferno coming our way. For a long time all I could think about was getting away from the bush and away from anything that could burn to that extent ever again. I was hating seeing nothing but black when I went for runs and seeing destroyed property wherever I went. My friends and my family got me through that, so perhaps you need to find someone who can help you.

You are clearly smart, and from what I can see a decent person (ignore Blah) and the world has few enough of those things to lose more because you are afraid.

Didn't really say that

Sorry, I have just had too many anti-legislation types treat me like I know nothing just because I disagree with them. Many of those who do this have far less experience with firearms than I do, as was shown when one insisted that how you cycled the action after a round had been fired affected the energy transference of the round

though if one is to compare my CC weapon to a hobby I might mean that insultingly.

No, that part is not a hobby, I am referring to actual hobbies, in any scenario where seizure of illegal weapons is taking place, it is first necessary to remove the need, perceived or otherwise for the necessity of lethal self defence on a regular basis.

Oh, and also, firearms are my LIVING as well, so this idea of yours leaves me unemployed.

Hunting rifles, target rifles, restoration of historically important pieces, target pistols, the list goes on.

There are, especially the Russian mafia, and who says it isn't already fucked?

I would like to see where you are getting this from, because everything that I have seen, in news and articles, indicates that television and film have vastly overblown their power.

I do like the diversity of positions that you three have taken, Kitten on self defence, Krieger (whom I cannot help but see as the doctor from archer) on the balance of power between Govt. and people and winkie on constitutional sanctity. Genuine pat on the back guys, it goes a long way toward showing that your position is not hegemony.

1. And how exactly do you screen out gang members? Unless they have a prior arrest record, we can't do much about it. Not to mention they can pay any soldier to steal weapons for lots of money. Especially ammo, and mags.

2. Meth is actually a legal medical drug you can get now, but for limited use. Its called Desoxyn. It was a controlled drug already. People started recreating it, and then it exploded in use which then caused it to be illegal in its street form.

Nothing was actually taken away. Only restricted.

3. I never said leaving guns on the counter.

I said the 5th amendment. The right to trial. The right to compensation in eminent domain.

Stop using straw men. The fact of the matter is that the 5th has universal support. To suspend even a part of it would go against what the people want. To suspend a right everyone believes in is not democratic. Its an awful way to solve a problem because:

A) it wouldn't work because mass confiscations are not always 100% thorough and never will be.
B) It would make everyone hate you and your cause. There is no suspending the 5th without everyone else knowing about it and taking huge issues with it.
C) There is no "I am just in to grab my hair dryer" mentality in the constitution. Its either in or its out. Its set up to not to be easily changed, because if it was the constitution would be nothing more a wall for graffiti. A paper that constantly changes to reflect political ideology at any given time. There is a reason it cant be easily changed, to stop short sighted and spur of the moment amendments like a gun ban.

Its hard to get it out, and hard to get it back in. For a temporary amount of time for a fix that may not even work.

To suspend a fundamental legal right is an awful idea. For obvious fucking reasons. Do you honestly think that taking out a legal right EVERYONE WANTS is in any way democratic? That people won't fucking notice?

For an outcome that is idealized at BEST?

I don't care for regulation, but any ban is just a bad idea. Because no one will support it if it even mentions taking out part of the 5th. That's why gun control groups want to go about gun control other than a ban that suspends the 5th amendment.

Changing societal perspectives, changing regulations. Solutions much easier and much more agreeable than taking out a part of the 5th with a 2/3rds vote. A vote that even if politicians made, the people won't like. Since there is virtually no chance of the public ever supporting taking away the right to legal compensation. A change that, during the "ban," will allow states to confiscate property without due compensation. Something they could exploit.

TLDR: Regulation good, ban bad.

Ultratwinkie:
snip

For the love of all that is fucking holy mate, don't just quote long posts.

90 of what you said there was still based on the idea that I was negating the fifth amendment, which you have yet to fucking show. If meth was legal, then criminalised, and can now be seized, that provides a precedent and a proof of concept.

-No retraction of calling australia barbaric, or that it develops at half the speed that the US does.
-no admitting that claiming that yanks don't don't use a 'ends justify the means' mentality is daft
-No recognition that I put forward other things to be used in tandem with legislation
-No recognition that claiming that the constitution is not really a law is daft
-No indication of any consequences outside of firearm legislation

You don't really understand what a rebuttal is do you?

the clockmaker:

Ultratwinkie:
snip

For the love of all that is fucking holy mate, don't just quote long posts.

90 of what you said there was still based on the idea that I was negating the fifth amendment, which you have yet to fucking show. If meth was legal, then criminalised, and can now be seized, that provides a precedent and a proof of concept.

-No retraction of calling australia barbaric, or that it develops at half the speed that the US does.
-no admitting that claiming that yanks don't don't use a 'ends justify the means' mentality is daft
-No recognition that I put forward other things to be used in tandem with legislation
-No recognition that claiming that the constitution is not really a law is daft
-No indication of any consequences outside of firearm legislation

You don't really understand what a rebuttal is do you?

1. I never called Australia barbaric, you took it there. I said that Americans cannot think of a world without the 5th. It would be considered barbaric. Since it is considered a basic right to them. You also took the history comparison out of context. Instead of actually arguing you are going off on an imaginary argument that resides in your head.

As I said, stop the straw manning and stop wasting my time.

2. "ends justify the means" in terms to the constitution doesn't work. The people won't allow it. Again, you take shit out of context. Any attempt to temporarily suspend the 5th will be laughed out of congress and America at large certainly wont get behind it.

3. The constitution is law, the bill of rights are rights. You can mess with a law, but you can't just mess with rights and expect people to just be okay with it. You need a damn good reason, and "gun ban" isn't a reason. Its a worse solution than what modern gun control advocates are proposing.

4. The street meth wasn't the meth the companies were making. Its a recreated version. A pseudo substitute at best. Nothing was actually taken away because the drug itself was already restricted under law. The was no mass confiscation. It was already illegal to have without a prescription.

5. No step by step plan = no actual plan. Just buzz words like "community engagement" and "responsibility." Which cops are already doing but it hasn't actually done anything. All I seen from you is reform of police along with a gun ban. Not exactly plan, at best its a sound byte.

6. If you are going to intentionally waste my time with straw men, I won't even bother cutting your posts down to size.

7. No indication of consequences beyond firearm legislation? How about it will cause a shit storm? You yourself say America loves its constitution to an almost religious level. Do you honestly believe they won't kick up a huge amount of shit and send it your way?

That states won't take advantage of the situation and refuse compensation? That everyone will just work with you because "humanity is good?" To expect everyone to not take advantage of the situation is naive at best. Not to mention the possibility that the politics could break down mid-ban. The same way mental health reform did in the 1970s, and left the mental health system in ruins.

Ultratwinkie:

1. I never called Australia barbaric, you took it there. I said that Americans cannot think of a world without the 5th. It would be considered barbaric. Since it is considered a basic right to them. You also took the history comparison out of context. Instead of actually arguing you are going off on an imaginary argument that resides in your head.

'In American culture, that is considered barbaric.'
Although, I did misread the instance where you refereed to not having the 5th as barbaric, as not having anything in the bill of rights as barbaric, that one is my bad and I appologise. SO you only called my nation barbaric once instead of twice.

Hint hint sweetheart, when you call things that other countries do barbaric, it tends to go over poorly with those fucking countries.

As I said, stop the straw manning and stop wasting my time.

Not a straw man if you said it mate. And wasting your fucking time? I am not forcing you to post, me, I am sitting down enjoying my day off talking to someone who believes that if he says something often enough, it will become true. If you have somewhere more important to be, I contend that any form of posting on a forum is wasting your time, good arguments or no.

2. "ends justify the means" in terms to the constitution doesn't work. The people won't allow it. Again, you take shit out of context. Any attempt to temporarily suspend the 5th will be laughed out of congress and America at large certainly wont get behind it.

-There is no "ends justify the means" here. - you
You didn't say shit about it being in ref to the US constitution.
And I love the continual use of 'the people' as a single unified group that agrees with you. WHat happens to those who do not agree with you, are they no longer 'the people'

3. The constitution is law, the bill of rights are rights. You can mess with a law, but you can't just mess with rights and expect people to just be okay with it. You need a damn good reason, and "gun ban" isn't a reason. Its a worse solution than what modern gun control advocates are proposing.

you understand what a legislated right is right? Jesus wept. And you are simply saying that it is in contradiction of that section of the law, not actually showing how. Again. In addition, I think it is time that we add another caveat to how that section of the law is not being violated by firearm legislation.

Note that it uses the phase 'except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger' (The fact that it makes no mention of an air force leads me to believe that your constitution is very fucking out of date), now this combined with the rationale that people should be able to have a firearm because 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' and the 'public danger' posed by firearms leads me too... if you can have a gun because 'militia' they can take your gun because 'militia'

That, on top of the 'for public use' caveat, shows me that the law would not be contradicted.

Or we can just admit that the law is an out of date contradictory mess that does not respond well to the changed conditions of a modern age.

4. The street meth wasn't the meth the companies were making. Its a recreated version. A pseudo substitute at best. Nothing was actually taken away because the drug itself was already restricted under law. The was no mass confiscation. It was already illegal to have without a prescription.

can't own pre-coursers, can't own the equipment, if you are found with either they will be confiscated. Precedent for seizure of property that was once legal.

5. No step by step plan = no actual plan. Just buzz words like "community engagement" and "responsibility." Which cops are already doing but it hasn't actually done anything. All I seen from you is reform of police along with a gun ban. Not exactly plan, at best its a sound byte.

I provided a few simple things that they could do, nations that they could use as examples and broad trends that they can follow, if you are too fucking lazy too read them until I provide a massive dissertation, that is not my problem.

6. If you are going to intentionally waste my time with straw men, I won't even bother cutting your posts down to size.

Says the man who insists on believing that I my side is out to kill democracy and abolish free trials. It is not about dividing up my posts for the sake of argument, it is not having the same long post appear several times so people don't have to sift through the same words over and over. If you are too bloody lazy to do me the same fucking courtesy that I am doing you, at least snip the fucking post so it does not appear over and over. But that just fits what you have displayed so far, lazy posting, lazy debating and lazy thinking.

7. No indication of consequences beyond firearm legislation? How about it will cause a shit storm? You yourself say America loves its constitution to an almost religious level. Do you honestly believe they won't kick up a huge amount of shit and send it your way?

So you admit that the only negative consequences are from the violent fuckhead fringe on your side.

That states won't take advantage of the situation and refuse compensation? That everyone will just work with you because "humanity is good?" To expect everyone to not take advantage of the situation is naive at best. Not to mention the possibility that the politics could break down mid-ban. The same way mental health reform did in the 1970s, and left the mental health system in ruins.

Well mate, I apologise for expecting yanks to behave like adults and not gun each other the fuck down en mass because they didn't like a piece of legislation. And no, humanity is not good, which is why random people in the street should not have the ability to deal instant death.

the clockmaker:
snip

1. With something as fundamental and actually beneficial as the 5th, I doubt we will find a majority of people who will support suspending it.

That's why it won't work. The majority won't allow it. Say what you will about the 2nd, but the 5th is something so unoffensive that I doubt you will find a majority to demand it repealed.

Since it will be incredibly hard to convince the majority of Americans to be against getting money from the government in exchange for their property, there is no need to talk about the 5th as if its the 2nd amendment or even the 10th. There is no controversy surrounding the 5th. Most likely, there never will.

2. Did I say violence? No. I said shit storm. The violent fringe don't even need to do anything, because the damage to their reputation would be enough. No one will take anyone seriously if they suggest the 5th must go, even temporarily.

Hell, if the PR becomes bad enough it could effect the entire argument for gun control by association. This is why no one wants to suggest such huge changes when little changes can work just as well. Its like hitting an anthill with a howitzer.

3. I didn't think I would need to clarify in terms of the ends justify the means. We are talking about the constitution here, I assumed that you would keep up instead of running off into your own tangent. Considering you just skimmed, it seems I need to use a big neon sign. So let me rephrase that:

America won't accept the government suspending unoffensive and widely supported amendments just because they say its for "the greater good." They will need something more substantial than a vague sound byte for an idea that may not even work. Th prohibition has made sure that argument for fast and loose changes to the constitution won't work ever again.

4. The equipment for meth production isn't advanced, its more archaic now. The ingredients are commonplace household items. Its not illegal to have drain cleaner. Now if it was advanced equipment, it could have been within the scope of legality if they hadn't sold directly to the streets. So it would be shut down just like an illegal bootleg brewery would.

5. Air force? An air force requires training unless you want to fight with crop dusters or fly a multi-million dollar jet into the nearby mountain. If it requires specialized training, its not exactly a militia is it? Again, its vague to hold its relevancy in the future. Why do you think Sun Tzu's art of war is still read today? And still relevant? Its short and vague, a basic checklist of strategic thinking at best. It was never meant to be specific, because that interpretation brought a host of problems like making child labor laws unconstitutional. Its the reason we dropped that idea long ago.

6. Gunning down each other over a law? Keep in mind taking away the 5th would be taking away a basic right Americans can't even think of not having for a second. Its sensible for them to be violent and angry over the loss of a basic right.

It would be like taking away the Australian right to acquire property on just terms (the closest equivalent).

Which is why no one wants to touch the 5th. People will not go for it, and if the government went ahead without the permission of the majority they will be angry. This is why I talked about "the people" being angry, they won't allow it and if its forced they will lash back. You can't just say "we're the government, deal with it" to the majority in a democratic nation.

Notice how there is very little talk about repealing the 5th amendment. If there was, I have yet to hear anything mainstream. As far as I see, I see a lot of support.

7. I said to ban guns you would need to go through the 5th. You went of on the 5th about how it "can change." Yet you refuse to acknowledge that the 5th amendment has absolutely no mainstream demands to repeal it. In fact, any mention of the 5th are cries to enforce it.

If no one wants a law repealed and wants it upheld, and the government repeals it, then its by its very definition undemocratic. I am not saying you are out to kill America, I am saying that the idea of the 5th being taken out in any real life situation is impossible.

Even if it did happen, by no means will it be considered democratic unless its a strange "opposite day" world.

Ultratwinkie:

1. With something as fundamental and actually beneficial as the 5th, I doubt we will find a majority of people who will support suspending it.

That's why it won't work. The majority won't allow it. Say what you will about the 2nd, but the 5th is something so unoffensive that I doubt you will find a majority to demand it repealed.

Since it will be incredibly hard to convince the majority of Americans to be against getting money from the government in exchange for their property, there is no need to talk about the 5th as if its the 2nd amendment or even the 10th. There is no controversy surrounding the 5th. Most likely, there never will.

2. Did I say violence? No. I said shit storm. The violent fringe don't even need to do anything, because the damage to their reputation would be enough. No one will take anyone seriously if they suggest the 5th must go, even temporarily.

Hell, if the PR becomes bad enough it could effect the entire argument for gun control by association. This is why no one wants to suggest such huge changes when little changes can work just as well. Its like hitting an anthill with a howitzer.

And again, I have shown how it does not affect the fifth and that if it did the fifth would not need to be removed. You have yet to refute that and have apparently decided to just operate on the belief that you have.

3. I didn't think I would need to clarify in terms of the ends justify the means. We are talking about the constitution here, I assumed that you would keep up instead of running off into your own tangent. Considering you just skimmed, it seems I need to use a big neon sign. So let me rephrase that:

mate you said, 'there is not ends justify the means here, in america that is considered barbaric' it is a statement that is obviously false. It is not my fault if you failed to convey your meaning properly.

America won't accept the government suspending unoffensive and widely supported amendments just because they say its for "the greater good." They will need something more substantial than a vague sound byte for an idea that may not even work. Th prohibition has made sure that argument for fast and loose changes to the constitution won't work ever again.

Yep, so lets do slow and measured changes. And again there is no need to suspend the fifth amendment, stop pretending that there is.

4. The equipment for meth production isn't advanced, its more archaic now. The ingredients are commonplace household items. Its not illegal to have drain cleaner. Now if it was advanced equipment, it could have been within the scope of legality if they hadn't sold directly to the streets. So it would be shut down just like an illegal bootleg brewery would.

oh so it is how advanced an item is that determines it legality now. Face it, there are precedents for seizure of illegal property that was, at one point legal.

5. Air force? An air force requires training unless you want to fight with crop dusters or fly a multi-million dollar jet into the nearby mountain. If it requires specialized training, its not exactly a militia is it?

Jesus Christ mate, you have the nerve to accuse me of skimming and then come out with this. the militia and the air force, two separate points.
Air force, no mention of the air force is made in that section of the constitution's listing of armed forces, this is an indicator for the fact that the US constitution is way out of date.
Militia, if you can have a weapon because 'militia' then your weapon can be taken because 'militia' I'm not going to write out the whole thing again, because your lazy reading and lazy posting makes it not worth the effort.

Again, its vague to hold its relevancy in the future.

Why do you think Sun Tzu's art of war is still read today? And still relevant? Its short and vague, a basic checklist of strategic thinking at best. It was never meant to be specific, because that interpretation brought a host of problems like making child labor laws unconstitutional. Its the reason we dropped that idea long ago.

having vague legislation allows for too many loopholes, too convoluted a system and wastes too much time in debating of intent v meaning leading to a broken and tangled legal system like the US has now.

6. Gunning down each other over a law? Keep in mind taking away the 5th would be taking away a basic right Americans can't even think of not having for a second. Its sensible for them to be violent and angry over the loss of a basic right.

No one but you is talking about the fifth amendment, everybody else is talking about the second because the fifth is in no way relevant to the discussion that we are having.

It would be like taking away the Australian right to acquire property on just terms (the closest equivalent).

Ah yes, section 51.XXXi of the commonwealth of Australia constitution act, known affectionately as the Kerrigan law, which would be a good basis for any proposed seizure of US firearms. Note that it does not state anything in regards to compensation, just that the whole affair be conducted on just terms.

Which is why no one wants to touch the 5th. People will not go for it, and if the government went ahead without the permission of the majority they will be angry. This is why I talked about "the people" being angry, they won't allow it and if its forced they will lash back. You can't just say "we're the government, deal with it" to the majority in a democratic nation.

Of course if the vote does not go through, the government should not do it, which is why I am advocating for this to happen democratically. You are simply saying, 'you are wrong because people disagree with you' and I ask you again, who do you define as the people, do people who disagree with you no longer qualify as 'the people'

Notice how there is very little talk about repealing the 5th amendment. If there was, I have yet to hear anything mainstream. As far as I see, I see a lot of support.

Note that I am not talking about repealing the fifth, and this whole bullshit tangent came from you deciding that firearm legislation would lead to the loss of free trials and the death of democracy

7. I said to ban guns you would need to go through the 5th.

yep you said it and said it but you have failed to back it up. And it has not seemed to have got through your skull that I have also said several times that there are other forms of regulation than banning guns, and that I have also said several times that I only want to increase regulations on certain types of guns

You went of on the 5th about how it "can change."

nope I have been saying,it is not a contradiction to firearm legislation and even if it was, there would be no need to throw it out only to amend it [quote] Yet you refuse to acknowledge that the 5th amendment has absolutely no mainstream demands to repeal it.

Because I am not fucking calling for it to be repealed you wilfully ignorant little rapscallion.

Ultratwinkie:
I said the 5th amendment. The right to trial.

Interesting aside, here... or I think it is...

The 5th Amendment mentions that Grand Jury Trials aren't necessary for the Militia... but current judicial definitions of 'Militia' when applied to the 2nd Amendment is quite vague and often given to mean in respect to the 2nd as 'able bodied adults'... soooooo... well how does that mesh?

Inquiring shit-stirrers want to know.

Smagmuck_:
About %50-%60 of private gun owners are Veterans, most of which have been dealing with Muj.

What, what? Less than half of US citizens that own guns aren't ex military, and most ex US military have fought insurgents?

Yeah, citation needed on both those.

the clockmaker:
I posted a list of proposals that didn't involve any banning the other day, and it was shot down simply because it stated that someone should have a reason to own their gun.

Do you mind posting it, I might actually to be inclined to agree with you.

And to be honest, there are somethings about gun control that I agree with, specifically the National Firearms Act of the 1930s that regulated Short Barreled Shotguns and Rifles. I have no problem paying $5-200 tax stamps once and only once to enjoy a little short barreled fun.

And the only reason I disagree with the Hugh's Amendment is because it made somethings so god-awful expensive and that it was illegitimately passed into law.

See, opinion amongst the hunters that I know is that if you need an Armalite patterned rifle to hunt deer, you are shitty hunter. On top of this, if you want a rifle for target shooting, why the fuck do you need the right to walk down the street with it slung over your shoulder on the way to the corner shop.

First off, Armalite rifles are pretty modular. Which means that you can tailor it to use it as a hunting rifle.

Second, the hunters that hold the opinion you mention are a minority over here. Most of them don't care what you hunt with as long as you're safe about it, follow the four rules, and when you do score a Buck, or whatever you chose to hunt, that it is a clean kill.

Because guns cause addiction and affect your mental state?

I was alluding to the fact that the War on Drugs was ineffective, much like most gun legislation here.

And I still count victims of negligence.

Great, that's still not even 1% of the US population.

Smagmuck_:

Great, that's still not even 1% of the US population.

1% of US population is more than 100% population of my country. Just saying, comes across as a little scary. In that "well that's a lot of people" kind of way.

Vegosiux:

1% of US population is more than 100% population of my country. Just saying, comes across as a little scary. In that "well that's a lot of people" kind of way.

Let me just check wikipedia for a second. There's something I want to compare.

2,055,496 people in Slovenia? My state has a population of 6,021,988

...

You're right. That's a lot of people in difference.

Heck, my county has a population of 998,692, nearly half of your county.

Dannnnng

Smagmuck_:
snip

You live in Arizona, right? What do you think about their constitutional carry law?

CM156:
You live in Arizona, right? What do you think about their constitutional carry law?

I think it's okay, it could use some tweaking.

The Governor's Office strongly suggests that one apply for a permit for legal reasons, and they are incredibly easy to get here so long as you're a resident of the state. The issue is that it conflicts with Federal laws to some degree.

For example, since I am eighteen years old, I am legally allowed to own a hand gun, but I have to open carry it. I can not carry it concealed until I am 21, nor can I buy one from a licensed dealer. Which is an issue because this law is not very well known. Two of my friend's OC when out hiking, or camping and have been stopped a number of times and one has been arrested because an LEO did not know the law of his own state.

If you live out in the bush, and don't have time, or can't travel the distance to a city to apply, then by all means carry without a permit. But I for one will be applying for a Conceal Carry Permit upon my 21st birthday, it seems like too much hassle to track down a person willing to do a private sale on a handgun to an eighteen year old.

Smagmuck_:

CM156:
You live in Arizona, right? What do you think about their constitutional carry law?

I think it's okay, it could use some tweaking.

The Governor's Office strongly suggests that one apply for a permit for legal reasons, and they are incredibly easy to get here so long as you're a resident of the state. The issue is that it conflicts with Federal laws to some degree.

For example, since I am eighteen years old, I am legally allowed to own a hand gun, but I have to open carry it. I can not carry it concealed until I am 21, nor can I buy one from a licensed dealer. Which is an issue because this law is not very well known. Two of my friend's OC when out hiking, or camping and have been stopped a number of times and one has been arrested because an LEO did not know the law of his own state.

If you live out in the bush, and don't have time, or can't travel the distance to a city to apply, then by all means carry without a permit. But I for one will be applying for a Conceal Carry Permit upon my 21st birthday, it seems like too much hassle to track down a person willing to do a private sale on a handgun to an eighteen year old.

I see.

My state hasn't passed one, and I wouldn't see it as likely happening until we get another Republican governor. The GOP holds a vast majority of our senate and house seats, and many represent the more rural areas of my state

As for me, I already have all the paperwork done. I took my class and got it signed off on. I have about a year till I can get my permit, and it's shall-issue.

Guns should be legal in American, because guns are cool

Another day, another gun control thread, but at least the OP was honest. The sentence quoted above is the subtext behind 90% of the pro-gun movement. It's nothing to do with necessity and everything to do with entitlement - and a bratty, immature sense of entitlement at that.

Smagmuck_:

Do you mind posting it, I might actually to be inclined to agree with you.

My main ideas for firearms legislation, some may be in effect in the US already.
1-Mandatory safes for weapons, same rule that we have in AUS and prevents your kid taking out your weapon to play with it and blowing his own head off or stealing it to commit an atrocity.

2-Mandatory training and licensing for the possession of a firearm. Once a year or every two years (details are for people who get paid for this sort of thing) show up to the local cop shop and show that you are familiar with safety regs, proper storage, etiquette and things like that to ensure that not only are you safe with your weapon, you will not allow your weapon to come into the hands of someone who will not be safe with it.

3-Graduated levels of screening with linked additional requirements, for example, if you want a 22 boltack for target shooting, clean crim and psych bill will get you through but if you want a military patterned weapon (I say patterned because if the US had never adopted the M-16, we all know that weapons in the 'armalite' configuration would be nowhere near as popular as they are) the people living in your house and under your care should also be looked at, to prevent a disturbed youth living in the same house as a weapon ergonomically suited to a mass shooting.

4-A requirement for a reason to own your weapon and a corresponding responsibility for that, you do not, for example need a hunting rifle in Manhattan, but if you have a cottage miles out in the scrub and live in NYC then you have a valid reason. If you need a rifle for target shooting, you need to be in a target shooting club. If you need a Vickers K, Bren, Owen gun, SLR, SMLE, Wombat gun etc for historical purposes, you should be registered as a museum or belong to a historical society. (also, if someone has all of those I am obliged to marry them)(also as with ANZ regs, self defence is not a valid reason)

5-A brief in person psych assessment as part of the registration process.

6-Annual/(other period of time) functionality checks to ensure that people aren't rocking about with weapons on which, for example the integrity of the barrel has been compromised through wear or damage.

7-Responsibility for weapons under a persons care, in that they are required to keep the weapon or register the sale of same. If they lose it they are required to report it, if it is rendered inoperable by damage or wear, they are to report it. If a weapon is used in a crime and the owner did not report that it was missing, they are subject to prosecution for at least negligence. The annual functionality check is a good time to ensure that everyone knows where their weapons are.

8-It will be a criminal offense to operate a weapon under the influence of alcohol or drugs, except where there is a reasonable belief that failure to use that weapon would result in death or permanent harm to the user.

And the only reason I disagree with the Hugh's Amendment is because it made somethings so god-awful expensive and that it was illegitimately passed into law.

sort of agreed, if any law is done, it must be done right.

First off, Armalite rifles are pretty modular. Which means that you can tailor it to use it as a hunting rifle.

But you don't need it, so if you want it, it will prob be for the 'badarse' factor, which most people I know do not consider an appropriate reason to own a weapon.

Second, the hunters that hold the opinion you mention are a minority over here. Most of them don't care what you hunt with as long as you're safe about it, follow the four rules, and when you do score a Buck, or whatever you chose to hunt, that it is a clean kill.

Never gone for deer meself, I always preferred roo.

I was alluding to the fact that the War on Drugs was ineffective, much like most gun legislation here.

My point was due to the mental attribute of drug addiction there is much more compulsion to continue to service the habit. If you were to be deprived of your firearm, I very much doubt that you would have to suffer through withdrawal.

Great, that's still not even 1% of the US population.

Still an unacceptably large number for the 'reward'.

May I take it that you are no longer pursuing the American Muj angle, I certainly hope so, because you seem reasonable aside from that and it is one thing which I cannot happily accept another person putting forward.

the clockmaker:
3-Graduated levels of screening with linked additional requirements, for example, if you want a 22 boltack for target shooting, clean crim and psych bill will get you through but if you want a military patterned weapon (I say patterned because if the US had never adopted the M-16, we all know that weapons in the 'armalite' configuration would be nowhere near as popular as they are) the people living in your house and under your care should also be looked at, to prevent a disturbed youth living in the same house as a weapon ergonomically suited to a mass shooting.

Disagree there. Firstly, you going to keep rechecking everyone every year or so? Who is going to pay for that, the US won't pay for health care for its citizens.

Secondly, what is a "disturbed youth"? Almost certainly that'd end up with a blanket stigmatising of the mentally ill, and a corresponding drop in people willing to admit they have mentall illness problems.

the clockmaker:

First off, Armalite rifles are pretty modular. Which means that you can tailor it to use it as a hunting rifle.

But you don't need it, so if you want it, it will prob be for the 'badarse' factor, which most people I know do not consider an appropriate reason to own a weapon.

The modular nature of the weapon is a major factor in its popularity, though. However, that's not something unique to the AR-15. The US government could go and develop a modular bolt action rifle, say, and make it open source (or perhaps allowing anyone in the US to make one without paying for the copyright), as the AR-15 is also popular due to not being copyrighted anymore.

Personally, I'd say that would be a good thing anyway, standardisation is a decent goal in of itself.

thaluikhain:

Disagree there. Firstly, you going to keep rechecking everyone every year or so? Who is going to pay for that, the US won't pay for health care for its citizens.

licensing fees. Cheap for a boltack, dear for a mil-patterned rifle. And I am not sure of the schedule, along the same lines as a drivers license perhaps.

Secondly, what is a "disturbed youth"? Almost certainly that'd end up with a blanket stigmatising of the mentally ill, and a corresponding drop in people willing to admit they have mentall illness problems.

A mental health injury is no different to a physical injury. I see no difference between someone who cannot go to work because they lost their legs in a freak shaving accident and an agoraphobic. Both are injured people and both need help. In general, not just in the US, people need to see that.

That being said, we do not allow blind people to drive cars and we do not allow people with no hands to be police. It needs to be recognised that while there is no moral failing in having a mental health injury, there are limitations that can be imposed upon one's lifestyle by that injury. This would not be a blanket ban of 'your kid is kind of strange, therefore dangerous' I am talking about kids that are being ostracised at school, bullied in town and feel abandoned at home. Perhaps, 'at risk of becoming a danger to themselves or others' would be a better term than 'disturbed'.

The modular nature of the weapon is a major factor in its popularity, though. However, that's not something unique to the AR-15. The US government could go and develop a modular bolt action rifle, say, and make it open source (or perhaps allowing anyone in the US to make one without paying for the copyright), as the AR-15 is also popular due to not being copyrighted anymore.

Best original idea to come out of this topic in several months, cheap(ish) for the government to do, allows people to keep their modular weapons, keeps the industry churning along and limits the amount of mil-patterned rifles floating about.

Gold star good sir, gold star

the clockmaker:

thaluikhain:

Disagree there. Firstly, you going to keep rechecking everyone every year or so? Who is going to pay for that, the US won't pay for health care for its citizens.

licensing fees. Cheap for a boltack, dear for a mil-patterned rifle. And I am not sure of the schedule, along the same lines as a drivers license perhaps.

Sounds reasonable, but not sure that'd cover it, it'd be fairly expensive. Also, usual complaints about government taxes in lieu of a ban.

the clockmaker:
A mental health injury is no different to a physical injury. I see no difference between someone who cannot go to work because they lost their legs in a freak shaving accident and an agoraphobic. Both are injured people and both need help. In general, not just in the US, people need to see that.

Agreed.

the clockmaker:
That being said, we do not allow blind people to drive cars and we do not allow people with no hands to be police. It needs to be recognised that while there is no moral failing in having a mental health injury, there are limitations that can be imposed upon one's lifestyle by that injury. This would not be a blanket ban of 'your kid is kind of strange, therefore dangerous' I am talking about kids that are being ostracised at school, bullied in town and feel abandoned at home. Perhaps, 'at risk of becoming a danger to themselves or others' would be a better term than 'disturbed'.

If that is going to happen, we need to be very, very careful about how we diagnose those people. Also, should they be trusted to drive? Vote?

Also, in your example there, you are (presumably accidently) close to saying someone should be labelled as dangerous based on other people deciding to be cruel to them. I really don't like where that is going. What about a family that is subject to lots of (for example) racism, or other bigotry?

Now, if this sort of thing is part of a comprehensive rethinking of the way mental health is treated, fair enough. But people seem to propose this in lieu of actual solutions.

thaluikhain:

Sounds reasonable, but not sure that'd cover it, it'd be fairly expensive. Also, usual complaints about government taxes in lieu of a ban.

We can't please everybody and the goal here should be only to create a situation as close to acceptable as we can.

If that is going to happen, we need to be very, very careful about how we diagnose those people. Also, should they be trusted to drive? Vote?

Of course they should, unless their injury manifests itself in such a way that would affect their driving. Voting needs to be a universal right.

The difference between the two is that driving is an important part of daily life and it does not have connotations of violence. In the majority of spree killings, the offender is seeking a violent release from their everyday life.

Also, in your example there, you are (presumably accidently) close to saying someone should be labelled as dangerous based on other people deciding to be cruel to them. I really don't like where that is going. What about a family that is subject to lots of (for example) racism, or other bigotry?

In the case of isolation, or being a victim of bullying, while it is no fault and no moral failing on the part of the victim, the matter of how that is affecting their mental state needs to be addressed before allowing them in contact with a firearm. Such a restriction would hopefully be temporary and in conjunction with counselling and other forms of treatment. It would also need to be completely confidential to prevent further isolation of the victim.

To put it into similar terms, imagine a father of three is in a car accident through no fault of his own. His wife and daughters are all killed and he suffers minor injuries requiring a brief hospitalisation. During this stay he is placed on suicide watch and his belt is taken away from him. During this period, we would not allow him into contact with weapons or other dangerous situations, but obviously once the risk of self harm has faded we can allow him to return to a normal life. I see it in similar terms for at-risk children, through no fault of their own, they have been placed into a situation where they are potentially becoming a threat to themselves or others. The system needs to shepherd them through this difficult time.

Now, if this sort of thing is part of a comprehensive rethinking of the way mental health is treated, fair enough. But people seem to propose this in lieu of actual solutions.

Unfortunately, my experience with mental health issues is mostly 'bottom up' as opposed to 'top down' having assisted my friends and family, but never in a professional sense.

I think that is important to see this not as a complete treatment idea for mental health issues, but rather as one small facet of mental health issues intruding into the discussion of firearm legislation.

the clockmaker:
SNIP

I suppose I ought to post my own then?

No gun laws at all.

Nah, joking. Anyway...

This is a rough outline, it needs some refining.

But you don't need it, so if you want it, it will prob be for the 'badarse' factor, which most people I know do not consider an appropriate reason to own a weapon.

Is using it for hunting not a good enough reason? Does it matter what I hunt with as long as it is a clean kill, and there's still a large portion of the animal left?

Never gone for deer meself, I always preferred roo.

I'm more for small game, like small rodents and birds.

Still an unacceptably large number for the 'reward'.

Since firearms deaths are relatively low here, why not work on bigger issues first? It just seems logical to prioritize what needs to be legislated.

Mr.Cynic88:
I'm aware of the history of slavery. I'm saying in that paragraph that "the second amendment" isn't the best argument against gun control because those laws were written in a substantially different context. The argument should be about today's time, not the 18th century. Which is why I contend that guns should really be legal because people want them.

In which case you have JACK ALL in way of evidence that any of the proposed measures would do any good. In many cases of the proposed gun control laws, there is ample evidence they have no effect whatsoever. The only laws that theoretically MIGHT have an effect would be currently unconstitutional. Yet only a small minority of the people in the US are even arguing for a revision/erasure of the 2nd amendment. There are two reasons for this. The first is that most of them are perfectly content to wave the bloody shirt to obtain political power and being seen as DOING SOMETHING by their constituents. The second is that they are either refusing to or incapable of understanding the logic behind why it would not work.

ravenshrike:

Mr.Cynic88:
I'm aware of the history of slavery. I'm saying in that paragraph that "the second amendment" isn't the best argument against gun control because those laws were written in a substantially different context. The argument should be about today's time, not the 18th century. Which is why I contend that guns should really be legal because people want them.

In which case you have JACK ALL in way of evidence that any of the proposed measures would do any good. In many cases of the proposed gun control laws, there is ample evidence they have no effect whatsoever. The only laws that theoretically MIGHT have an effect would be currently unconstitutional. Yet only a small minority of the people in the US are even arguing for a revision/erasure of the 2nd amendment. There are two reasons for this. The first is that most of them are perfectly content to wave the bloody shirt to obtain political power and being seen as DOING SOMETHING by their constituents. The second is that they are either refusing to or incapable of understanding the logic behind why it would not work.

I'm confused. Are you agreeing with me?

Show me the official yardstick by which "cool" is measured in order to be applicable to matters of law.

Vegosiux:

Mr.Cynic88:

Why isn't "it is cool" a rational argument? Why produce fireworks? Why sell elaborate katanas? Humans should have the right to rationally pursue their interests, as long as they are not specifically hurting somebody else.

Well, because it's not a rational argument, a rational argument would weigh all the aspects of a thing in addition to its "coolness"; such as usability, purpose, cost efficiency...

Maybe stemming from not being one with tons of disposable income, but it comes across as very irrational to me to buy something "because it's cool".

Posting on The Escapist, I assume you buy video games. Now, we've heard all kinds of debate about banning violent video games, and there are psychological tests that conclude video games can cause an increase in aggression when playing. Should we logically ban video games? They're not very cost efficient, and they have no purpose beyond simulated battles. Beyond how fun they are to play, they're no real rational reason to buy one. Personally, I think enough people find video games cool in-and-of themselves that they should be legal, and I feel the same way about guns.

Trust me, I'm broke too, and I do not currently have the funds to purchase a gun. I also don't have a FOID card in Illinois, meaning that its not even legal for me to buy one. Still, as a gamer, are you going to tell me "because it's cool" isn't a good enough reason to buy something.

Mr.Cynic88:

Still, as a gamer, are you going to tell me "because it's cool" isn't a good enough reason to buy something.

Yes. Yes, I am. I do not buy video games "because they're cool", most of the ones I buy are not just simulated battles, and as far as their entertainment value goes, they are a lot more cost-efficient than going out for a movie or for drinks. Plus, they offer challenges to my brain that they couldn't just by "being cool".

I'm sorry, but don't try to pull this kind of nonsensical "not so different" hogwash on me again.

And yes, I'm going to tell you that "because it's cool" isn't a good enough reason to buy something, if you ask me. But, like, that's just my opinion, maaaaaan. Cause there's no absolute truth on this one...but if you ask me, and ask you did, this is the answer you will get. Ask someone else, you'll get a different one.

Smagmuck_:

I suppose I ought to post my own then?

No gun laws at all.

Loved it. 10/10.

OT: I just accept guns are part of American culture, so when I'm asked if I think (as an outsider) whether or not there should be any gun control in America, I say yes, and propose.

-Training course in gun safety, maintenance and usage spanning two weeks.
-Background check conducted by the police.

the clockmaker:

3-Graduated levels of screening with linked additional requirements, for example, if you want a 22 boltack for target shooting, clean crim and psych bill will get you through but if you want a military patterned weapon (I say patterned because if the US had never adopted the M-16, we all know that weapons in the 'armalite' configuration would be nowhere near as popular as they are) the people living in your house and under your care should also be looked at, to prevent a disturbed youth living in the same house as a weapon ergonomically suited to a mass shooting.

Note that I'm also taking into account your discussion with Thaluik, just didn't feel the need to quote that entire exchange.

In the case of looking after/shepherding the disturbed youth, I think the rest of your laws go well in complimenting this, but the costs of individually checking every single person for this kind of thing have to be strongly considered.

This is getting into the realm of hundreds or even thousands of dollars going into each gun purchase, before you actually buy the gun if you're now required to get a psychological evaluation. Plus all the follow up work and costs of actually doing anything about said issues.

Also, I'm just curious because if it was addressed I missed it. In your "reasonable reason for owning a gun", is self-defense considered a reasonable reason for owning one?

-If it is considered a valid reason, are there restrictions placed on it? Such as "only in areas where it is reasonable to require one for self defense", or "only these types of guns can be bought for self-defense"?
-If it is not considered a valid reason, I can guarantee America would never agree to these rules as a whole purely because if self-defense is not considered a valid reason would mean many of them can't own guns.

Also for the people who collect guns, is that a good reason to acquire them?

EDIT: To actually answer the OP. No it shouldn't be legal purely because it's cool. Stealth bombers are cool. Nobody but the military should be able to own a functioning one.

EDIT2: No I'm not implying only the military should be able to own guns.

Gold:
OT: I just accept guns are part of American culture, so when I'm asked if I think (as an outsider) whether or not there should be any gun control in America, I say yes, and propose.

-Training course in gun safety, maintenance and usage spanning two weeks.
-Background check conducted by the police.

That's already being done today, and people are being killed by the thousands. So it's unlikely to work. Also that course won't cure people who are purchasing weapons with the intent of perpetrating murder later on. If someone's already deluded and paranoid enough to think people are coming for them and they need to be able to kill to stay safe, a simple course won't suddenly persuade them to start acting like decent human beings.

Also training people to use guns makes them more likely to kill. Nothing is relatively safer than a gun owner who's trying to murder someone, without being able to even shoot straight. Practise should be left out for certain.

Gold:
Also for the people who collect guns, is that a good reason to acquire them?

Like gun stores or shooting clubs, they're also going to be prized targets for people who need guns to perpetrate crimes with, and it's unlikely they can take the needed safety precautions. It should be a very good idea to make restrictions on those extremely tight or just do away with it.

If it's about collecting guns, they can simply have the barrel cast shut and it's no longer a firearm, excempt from all the regulations and they can be purchased in any desired quantity without any problems or risk. That's what they did with former resistance fighters after world war II here, that way those weapons could be allowed to be kept, without them causing a danger to society.

Blablahb:
That's already being done today, and people are being killed by the thousands.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that there was no required training course for gun ownership in the US.

Gold:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that there was no required training course for gun ownership in the US.

Unless the laws have changed (at least in Massachusetts) then in order to get a Firearms Identification Card you have to go though a safety course in order to show that you are at least competent in regards to safety. If you fail the test then you can take it again in 6 months.

Gold:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that there was no required training course for gun ownership in the US.

There's states where it's not mandatory by law, but from those with the requirement plus how often it's offered privately by gun stores and such, we should've been seeing an effect on the number of gun crimes by now if it had worked. But we don't, so we have to conclude courses on gun safety won't work. Maybe you can reduce the number of people who accidentally shoot themselves slightly, but other measures like a gun ban are far more effective.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here