Anti-Gun Law Supporters | Second Amendment Supporters [DEBATE]

[Uranus]

So this is a thread where those who support the Anti Gun Laws, and those who support the Second Amendment.

For those who support Anti Gun laws, explain why you do and why you believe guns should be outlawed.

And those who support the Second Amendment, do the same and why you believe that guns should be legal.

Please don't make any BS posts saying 'Guns are Dangerous', 'Only bad guys have them'. Please actually make a mature statement.

[Microcosm]

In my opinion, our right to have guns is very important because it gives us a way to rise against our government if it were to ever become corrupt. We have this right in order to fight back. The problem is this: that would've been possible at the founding of this country, but I don't believe it is now. If we tried to fight back now, the government would surely be prepared. Our inevitable defeat would be guaranteed. They would send the national guard on us and it would be put down. That is the flaw in this idea. Still, though, it is important that we are allowed to have guns. If the army is allowed, then we should be allowed. Yes, things will happen and people will misuse their firearms, but that's what we have police for.

EDIT: Just to make another point: I'm not very passionate on this subject, so if I somehow made a stupid claim or if I don't seem well-educated on it, then let me know or educate me on it.

[Uranus]

In my opinion, our right to have guns is very important because it gives us a way to rise against our government if it were to ever become corrupt. We have this right in order to fight back. The problem is this: that would've been possible at the founding of this country, but I don't believe it is now. If we tried to fight back now, the government would surely be prepared. Our inevitable defeat would be guaranteed. They would send the national guard on us and it would be put down. That is the flaw in this idea. Still, though, it is important that we are allowed to have guns. If the army is allowed, then we should be allowed. Yes, things will happen and people will misuse their firearms, but that's what we have police for.

EDIT: Just to make another point: I'm not very passionate on this subject, so if I somehow made a stupid claim or if I don't seem well-educated on it, then let me know or educate me on it.


You make a very good point. (And don't worry, this post is not uneducated or stupid. I prefer this kind of post compared to others)
But my topic is not about fighting the government with guns and ammo, but just being able to actually posses a firearm and why we should have them.

I find it ridiculous when people say we should not own guns, and that only government officials and police officers should be allowed to have them.

For example, if you are attacked or threatened by someone who has a weapon (Doesn't have to be a gun, it could be a knife or a baseball bat), we should be able to defend ourselves with a firearm. I don't care if police are on their way because there might not be enough time. Those who say that guns should be outlawed are saying simply:

"We're the government's bitches and we are just going to hope and pray that the police get here in time to protect our helpless selves before we get our asses handed to us because we are just so happy for this idea"

Well guess what, if ya actually stop being worried about other citizens possessing firearms, maybe you won't get your ass shot off because we as Americans have the right to defend ourselves. We don't need a stupid outfit and a shiny badge to be able to.

[Vlerchan]

I'm contributing one post to this thread because the topic bores me to hell.

I'm also providing a US-centric answer to a US-centric thread. I'm quite happy with being the government's bitch in Ireland.

For those who support Anti Gun laws, explain why you do and why you believe guns should be outlawed.[quote]
In the debate as far as the US no gun control proponent is keen on outlawing guns, just restricting access based on what I tend to consider quite sober considerations.

[quote=Bright Nights]And those who support the Second Amendment, do the same and why you believe that guns should be legal.
You mean, those who support a particular interpretation of the Second Amendment.

This is also phrased to make it look like advocates have the law on their side but the inter-state commerce clause still exists.

---

Outlawing guns in the US is a non-starter. It's just not going to happen. It's also still quite questionable whether it might be a good idea. However, there's no denial that the United States does have a tragic relationship with guns, and reducing the homicide rate - which guns are the largest contribute towards - to more tolerable levels can't be a bad idea. First we need to consider a few things.
Guns in the home tends to be counter-productive towards the objective of not getting killed (Dahlberg, L., Ikeda, R., Kresnow, M. 2004) (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full), and also counter-productive in general (Cook, P., Ludwig, J. 2004) (http://www.nber.org/papers/w10736).
Weapons choice matters and guns are more lethal than the various alternatives (Cook, P. 1991) (http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cjrr14&div=5&id=&page=), and this matters within the choice of gun (Roth, J. 1989) (ttps://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt). I would also look for more up-to-date studies but that would involve looking beyond the bookmarks I have saved and I think I'd rather just let people attempt to counter these.
So guns aren't the be all-and-end-all but restricting them would help. There's a number of considerations here:
Known-felons commit a large mount of murders.(Cook, P., Ludwig, J., Braga, A. 2005) (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201308)
Some large amount of these murders is committed with guns either stolen or gathered through a transfer between private individuals.
From this I have decided on a number of gun control laws:
Restrict more lethal weapons and lethal ammo entirely.
Restrict felons from accessing guns.
Require it so that no other establishments than those possessing a licence to sell guns can sell guns to the general populace - make illegal private transfers. Perhaps even nationalise the sale of guns though whether or not that is constitutional is questionable.
Require each purchasing purchasing a gun to register the gun and all pieces of ammunition.
Require that owners of lost or stolen guns are obliged to report the loss or theft. If a crime is committed with the weapon and it is the case that a report hasn't been filed then a jail sentence of at least two years should be imposed on the legal owner.
Sound good?

It's also the case that poverty also plays a large role in gun crime. I would prioritise dealing with that above these measures.

Still, though, it is important that we are allowed to have guns.
For what reason? If you accept that people owning guns is pointless - because the armed forces will best them - then what's your point?

---

For example, if you are attacked or threatened by someone who has a weapon (Doesn't have to be a gun, it could be a knife or a baseball bat), we should be able to defend ourselves with a firearm.
Is there a reason it has to be a firearm in particular?

Lots of non-lethal weapons are also workable as far as self-defence is concerned.

[Microcosm]

For what reason? If you accept that people owning guns is pointless - because the armed forces will best them - then what's your point?

It would make tons of people angry, especially here in the South. People feel more comfortable with their guns and it helps the public to defend against criminals that are trying to rape, rob, or kill them. Obvious reasons like that, I guess. My point was that guns wouldn't actually be effective in fighting our own government, but they are helpful in more small-scale altercations.

[WanderingHeart]

To be honest I support having guns used protection and ONLY for protection. If people were more educated about gun safety, when to use it etc. If people only used their guns for protection there wouldn't be an issue. Hell, if people weren't violent we wouldn't even need guns! But they are, and we need guns to protect us. I support the right to bear arms, but please just use your damn guns wisely.

[Uniquemind]

I think the issue is in regards to those with mental health problems obtaining guns.


Their mental issues impair how they see the world around them including the context of why they need a gun and what to use it on.


For that reason I believe they can't be treated equal and a better tracking of those with mental health disorders along with a lot more funding for mental health services is needed.

[oshawott]

people can own guns, I think it just needs to be harder to obtain them and more education on them should be provided, so less accidents and casualties.

[Zenos]

I am for gun ownership the second amendment states:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The concept of a right to keep and bear arms existed within English common law long before the enactment of the Bill of Rights

Infringed means violated! So the second amendment protects our right to own and bear arms form being violated.

Also the The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person.

Thus the right to own and bear arms is a right that cannot be surrendered!

[stism]

Not everyone is a strong young man. Some people are elderly, petite, enfeebled in some way. Why should such folks not have a means of effectively resisting a big punk who is attacking them? A few thousand muhaghadeen seem to be holding off the US army quite well in Afghanistan, so 60 miilion gunowners can do a lot more. We are not impoverished, uneducated shephards, you know. Don't kid yourself that the 1 million man US miliary could beat the gun owners.

[Sapehra]

I don't understand the argument, 'If we don't have guns, how are we supposed to defend ourselves?!'

It's up to the government to defend its own citizens, and if they aren't doing it. VOTE them out. Protest. Raise awareness about this issue. The entire prospect of large groups of people taking up weapons to defend themselves against other people who might have weapons paints a picture of an extremely tribal society. Nothing dissimilar to places like Afghanistan and Somalia.

Even if people were to rise up against the government, their guns wouldn't help them. There are hundreds of militant groups in Pakistan, the military itself is enough to sustain their security. China has also faced threats from armed groups, nothing has shaken them. So forget Uncle Sam, that's a pipe dream.

I'm against weapons in general. No need for them.

[kev99]

I tend to concur with Sapehra on this. If people feel the need to wear weapons to defend themselves, then it means their government has failed in one of its most fundamental mission - protecting its citizens.

And I also agree with him that there are much more effective ways to protest and change a society than with personal weapons. The argument of allowing them to defend civil liberties against an oppressive government doesn't stand against history. As far as I can tell, very few revolutions were won because the population had easy access to guns (leadership, raw numbers , external support are what usually decided the outcome). And in those, only a very small part actually achieved a result that was actually better for the population than the situation before. On the other hand, when populations were oppressed and wanted to fight back, they got guns and weapons regardless if they were outlawed or not. An oppressive regime is usually quick to ensure weapons are not legally available to the population anyway.

The only effect the law has is that it allows domestic marketing around the guns business. In short: it allows weapon makers to sell weapons and make massive amounts of money from them. And it is not even justified by the need of defending a population against oppression; it is just because people enjoy it. Making weapons "fun" or "culturally fundamental" goes against my values, especially when even children are raised with those ideas.

Just a word about Zenos's argument - just because something was once written doesn't mean it cannot be debated later on. Society changes, and what was once meaningful and logical doesn't necessarily stays so 200 years later.

[DriveAlive]

I am shocked to see that so many people here are so pro-gun. Gun rights is one of the few areas in which I depart from my usual liberal ideology. I am a huge supporter of gun rights because they are essential for defense, sport, and sheer enjoyment.

First of all, I believe that is the right of citizens to be armed as a way to defend themselves. I feel completely safe with people who concealed carry (many in my family do) and I plan on doing so as well when I am old enough. I also think that carrying a gun for self defense is especially important if one is gay because they are more likely to be victims of violent crime.

Guns are also essential for sport. I am proud to say that I am a hunter and that means that I use guns to hunt. To me, guns are intrinsically linked to hunting and American tradition. Outside of hunting, I enjoy target shooting of all kinds. I think that shooting is enjoyable, competitive, and something that all people can get involved in and enjoy. People should no be denied the ability to hunt and participate in the shooting sports.

Finally, I don't think any gun owner and supporter can be honest in why they support guns without mentioning the enjoyment that comes from them. Just like cars, art, books, etc. everyone has a specific thing that they enjoy and a personal reason why. Guns are no different. Outside of the enjoyment that comes from hunting or the shooting sports, guns themselves hold some special quality for me. Whether it is the beauty in design, simplicity, nostalgia, etc. I feel happier just by handling firearms.

I would love to hear people's opinions on what I have said and love to discuss guns in any form.

[Porpoise101]

I am shocked to see that so many people here are so pro-gun. Gun rights is one of the few areas in which I depart from my usual liberal ideology. I am a huge supporter of gun rights because they are essential for defense, sport, and sheer enjoyment.

First of all, I believe that is the right of citizens to be armed as a way to defend themselves. I feel completely safe with people who concealed carry (many in my family do) and I plan on doing so as well when I am old enough. I also think that carrying a gun for self defense is especially important if one is gay because they are more likely to be victims of violent crime.

Guns are also essential for sport. I am proud to say that I am a hunter and that means that I use guns to hunt. To me, guns are intrinsically linked to hunting and American tradition. Outside of hunting, I enjoy target shooting of all kinds. I think that shooting is enjoyable, competitive, and something that all people can get involved in and enjoy. People should no be denied the ability to hunt and participate in the shooting sports.

Finally, I don't think any gun owner and supporter can be honest in why they support guns without mentioning the enjoyment that comes from them. Just like cars, art, books, etc. everyone has a specific thing that they enjoy and a personal reason why. Guns are no different. Outside of the enjoyment that comes from hunting or the shooting sports, guns themselves hold some special quality for me. Whether it is the beauty in design, simplicity, nostalgia, etc. I feel happier just by handling firearms.

Personally, I have the same outlook on guns as you do. I would consider myself more liberal, but I definitely am more "classically" liberal about guns and privacy. Personally, if we invested in better education (especially in impoverished areas) and had a better mental health system, gun violence would be down in the long term.

[Airrd]

Whenever I think of guns I think of all the news stories I hear of kids getting their parents guns and accidentally shooting someone or another kid and that's why I think it is important that if someone does have a gun they keep them away from kids. Other than that I think there should be stricter laws on stuff like automatic weapons and people should only really need to have a handgun or something that isn't capable of mass murder

[DriveAlive]

Whenever I think of guns I think of all the news stories I hear of kids getting their parents guns and accidentally shooting someone or another kid and that's why I think it is important that if someone does have a gun they keep them away from kids. Other than that I think there should be stricter laws on stuff like automatic weapons and people should only really need to have a handgun or something that isn't capable of mass murder

First of all, gun owners are required by law to keep guns locked up if children under the age of 14 are in the home. Almost every time you here about a kid accidentally shooting someone with their parents' gun, it was probably illegally stored.

Second, the laws regarding automatic weapons are about as strict as you can get. To purchase an automatic weapon, it must have been manufactured before 1986 and registered with the ATF. Then, you must pay $200 tax and file a request with the ATF to purchase the gun. If it has been classified as a destructive device, you also need approval from your local police department. After all of this and a relatively long waiting period, you can finally purchase an automatic weapon.

Im not quite sure what you mean when you say "people should only really need to have a handun or something that isn't capable of mass murder." I am assuming from this that you think that people should be allowed to have handguns for personal defense, but there are specific types(?) of guns that should be illegal.

[Airrd]

Yeah I personally do not like any type of firearm because they can lead to trouble in the wrong hands but if I needed to protect myself I would only need a pistol to stop an attacker if I receive proper training with it.

[DriveAlive]

Yeah I personally do not like any type of firearm because they can lead to trouble in the wrong hands but if I needed to protect myself I would only need a pistol to stop an attacker if I receive proper training with it.

Its funny that you should say that only pistols are necessary because pistols are the heaviest regulated and usually the first to be banned firearm. This is mainly because of their concealability and the fact that they usually do not serve a hunting purpose. I assume then that you believe that people should not be allowed to own guns to hunt with?

Also, do you not like firearms because of personal experience or has something specifically influenced you to feel this way? Im curious because I have found that most people who are against firearms have no exposure to them or have had a personal experience that has shaped their belief. Just curious...

[Airrd]

Its funny that you should say that only pistols are necessary because pistols are the heaviest regulated and usually the first to be banned firearm. This is mainly because of their concealability and the fact that they usually do not serve a hunting purpose. I assume then that you believe that people should not be allowed to own guns to hunt with?

Also, do you not like firearms because of personal experience or has something specifically influenced you to feel this way? Im curious because I have found that most people who are against firearms have no exposure to them or have had a personal experience that has shaped their belief. Just curious...

Personally my experience with guns is that my dad has a couple of rifles. I don't know what type they are or anything. He like to hunt deer mainly for sport and I say mainly because I think he eats part of it but I believe if you aren't using the whole animal then that's being wasteful. (Also I know that guns aren't the best thing to use when hunting unless you're really trained but I know someone who uses a bow and arrow instead lol.) I don't approve of him hunting but I can't very well stop him. I'm a vegetarian and follow some Buddhist principles and believe that if you bring pain into the world then you carry that pain and suffering on your soul. My dad took me to a shooting range when I was younger and tried to have me target shoot but the gun frightened me with the noise and the kick.

And I didn't really think about how they could be concealed I was just thinking more about how many rounds they can shoot in a short time

[Uniquemind]

To randomly interject though.

Having guns around the house has often led to situations like but not exclusive to:

1. Scenarios where one's daughter's boyfriend snuck into the house with your daughters consent to visit.

Dad: thinking the worst, grabs, his gun and shoots first and asks questions later.

Possible son-in-law dead, therapy for your daughter required.

Congrats!

---

If society truly wants protection, they'd do away with the concept of privacy and everyone's business would be public in live-time and offenders could always be executed while the serious violent crimes are in-progress.


This is fantasy at the moment though.


My issue is not everyone is psychologically equal yet the USA's ideal makes us all assume we're all equal.

You don't want all people having easy access to an object whose primary purpose is to kill.

Other objects can kill yes, but they usually have other purposes that one cannot escape from so they need those items.

But in that same vein if there's a service that can remove mentally sick people away from all knives, guns, and materials that could be used to harm themselves or other's I'd advocate that.

This includes PTSD as well regardless if those individuals served in the armed forces or not.


If you're mentally ill you judgment is compromised.

[DriveAlive]

My issue is not everyone is psychologically equal yet the USA's ideal makes us all assume we're all equal.

You don't want all people having easy access to an object whose primary purpose is to kill.

Other objects can kill yes, but they usually have other purposes that one cannot escape from so they need those items.

But in that same vein if there's a service that can remove mentally sick people away from all knives, guns, and materials that could be used to harm themselves or other's I'd advocate that.

This includes PTSD as well regardless if those individuals served in the armed forces or not.


If you're mentally ill you judgment is compromised.
That is really the main point of gun control as it currently stands. The problem is I cannot see how it would be possible for a government to definitively decide who can have access to a gun and actually do so effectively without trampling over everyone's basic freedoms.

[Uniquemind]

That is really the main point of gun control as it currently stands. The problem is I cannot see how it would be possible for a government to definitively decide who can have access to a gun and actually do so effectively without trampling over everyone's basic freedoms.

I think over time technology will provide such public databases with medical records and criminal history to all gun sellers that can provide as fair and neutral public market place for guns.

And also there can exist regulation on types of gun and types of ammo, and for the buyer to have affidavits upon purchase that swear the purpose of such guns or ammo for the purpose it's supposed to be used for.


Certain modifications and types of guns (high power snipers) have no business being on the public market anyway.

There's a situation in Colorado where some crazy sniper is randomly shooting people from a distance....that's not self defense.


There was also a situation in Maryland around 2005 where a sniper was set loose and was picking off people over there including kids.

[Airrd]

The problem stems from the fact that the 2nd amendment was created in a wartime era when people wanted to have guns to form a militia so that they could break away from the British but now we dont have people forming militia because we have a strong police force

[Microcosm]

The problem stems from the fact that the 2nd amendment was created in a wartime era when people wanted to have guns to form a militia so that they could break away from the British but now we dont have people forming militia because we have a strong police force

Exactly. The American government makes people think that they can fight back against them if they ever got corrupt(which they are, just not entirely publicly), but really, we couldn't fight a corrupt government. They have access to weapons and strategies and resources that we couldn't even come close to.

[DriveAlive]

I think over time technology will provide such public databases with medical records and criminal history to all gun sellers that can provide as fair and neutral public market place for guns.

And also there can exist regulation on types of gun and types of ammo, and for the buyer to have affidavits upon purchase that swear the purpose of such guns or ammo for the purpose it's supposed to be used for.


Certain modifications and types of guns (high power snipers) have no business being on the public market anyway.

There's a situation in Colorado where some crazy sniper is randomly shooting people from a distance....that's not self defense.


There was also a situation in Maryland around 2005 where a sniper was set loose and was picking off people over there including kids.

I don't mean to berate you about your argument, but I would be interested to know how an affidavit would in any way cut down on crime and not just be a complete waste of time and burdeon on the government and citizens? Its just an unnecessary hindrance to legal gun owners because criminals won't care if they have signed an affidavit.

Also, could you please elaborate on what exact types of guns and ammo should be regulated/banned. What is your criteria when deciding what does not serve a purpose in the public market? Also, what do you deem a high power sniper rifle? Is it the design of the rifle, the cartridge, or even the scope? How do you decide that a certain rifle is for "sniping" and not for hunting or target shooting?

I know it sounds like a cop out, but I feel that when individuals start making assumptions about the intended uses of certain firearms, it becomes a slippery slope that only leads to trouble for law-abiding citizens.

[Uniquemind]

I don't mean to berate you about your argument, but I would be interested to know how an affidavit would in any way cut down on crime and not just be a complete waste of time and burdeon on the government and citizens? Its just an unnecessary hindrance to legal gun owners because criminals won't care if they have signed an affidavit.

Also, could you please elaborate on what exact types of guns and ammo should be regulated/banned. What is your criteria when deciding what does not serve a purpose in the public market? Also, what do you deem a high power sniper rifle? Is it the design of the rifle, the cartridge, or even the scope? How do you decide that a certain rifle is for "sniping" and not for hunting or target shooting?

I know it sounds like a cop out, but I feel that when individuals start making assumptions about the intended uses of certain firearms, it becomes a slippery slope that only leads to trouble for law-abiding citizens.

The affidavit is just more tools for the prosecution post-crime.

[DriveAlive]

The affidavit is just more tools for the prosecution post-crime.

Would a statement by a criminal saying that they will not use a gun to commit a crime really help the state in prosecuting that person after they have been arrested for commiting a crime with the gun? To me, its like making everyone sign an affidavit before getting on a plane to promise that you will not blow up the plane. Since killing people is already against the law, I do not find it prudent for everyone to waste their time with afidavits saying that they will not kill someone.

[Uniquemind]

Would a statement by a criminal saying that they will not use a gun to commit a crime really help the state in prosecuting that person after they have been arrested for commiting a crime with the gun? To me, its like making everyone sign an affidavit before getting on a plane to promise that you will not blow up the plane. Since killing people is already against the law, I do not find it prudent for everyone to waste their time with afidavits saying that they will not kill someone.

Yeah but the main purpose for a plane is to use it for transportation...any other use is well...odd.


For guns at least there's record of some kind of rational acknowledgement from a customer that knows what their getting and why their getting it.

If they stray from that declared use for reasons other than what is stated it might make it easier for the prosecution to hammer away at legal defense claims of:

1. Weapon used in a murder when it's intent was hunting.

2. It weakens insanity defenses, because one had to deliberately lie and logically spend effort circling around legal obstacles in a way that an insane person might not be able to go through all the steps before it becomes obvious they're in psychosis.

Like declared use: I need this gun to shoot this talking scarecrow on a Sunday, because I feel insecure.

^

Any merchant with a brain would go....okay something's not right with this customer I'm not sure I wanna sell this gun to them.

It makes it so you can't keep your head down and subtly buy a gun or ammo. As it stands a quiet crazy person could keep interaction at a minimum, drop his cash, perhaps wait a few days for a cooling off period depending on state law, and then walk out with a gun.

--


As for being more specific.

Guns that advertise features and capabilities to shoot or pierce body armor and really high tech stuff like that. Super fat magazines or clips, scopes, etc..

Use common sense it won't be such a slippery slope.

Like in urban settings there's no need for a sniper rifle that has a 30+ mile radius. (I used. 30 mi. as a arbitrary rhetorical example #)

Some weapons are more offensive than defensive and you'll know it as you research what you want to buy.


If your grandpa didn't use it to hunt 50 years ago, it's probably an extraneous feature one doesn't need in modern day to enjoy hunting or defend the home.


However smart gun technology which recognizes it's righteous owner or a stranger holding it so it can safely lock itself is welcome. However the gun industry doesn't want to use it in their products, they think it'll hurt profits or something.

[DriveAlive]

As for being more specific.

Guns that advertise features and capabilities to shoot or pierce body armor and really high tech stuff like that. Super fat magazines or clips, scopes, etc..

Use common sense it won't be such a slippery slope.

Like in urban settings there's no need for a sniper rifle that has a 30+ mile radius. (I used. 30 mi. as a arbitrary rhetorical example #)

Some weapons are more offensive than defensive and you'll know it as you research what you want to buy.


If your grandpa didn't use it to hunt 50 years ago, it's probably an extraneous feature one doesn't need in modern day to enjoy hunting or defend the home.


However smart gun technology which recognizes it's righteous owner or a stranger holding it so it can safely lock itself is welcome. However the gun industry doesn't want to use it in their products, they think it'll hurt profits or something.

I have to respectfully disagree with your above proposed regulations for a number of reasons. As conservative as it makes me sound, I really don't like anyone--let alone the government--telling me what is acceptable for me to do and own. Now I mean this withing reason because I am not advocating for the right to buy crack and a rocket launcher at Walmart, but I do think that I shouldn't have to defend my life choices against someone else's standards. For example, if I want to get married to a man or buy a Bugatti, I should be allowed to do so because it really is no one's business about how I spend my life.

On the issue of certain scopes, guns, bullets, etc. being inappropriate for civilian ownership, I agree to a certain extent. I will agree that civilians should not have access to bullets specificallly designed to penetrate body armor (BTW, I don't think I have ever seen this type of ammo advertised or sold and I am not even sure it is legal). You mention that sniper rifles that shoot a long distance should be banned. Well considering that a .22LR round will travel over a mile, it is completely impractical to try to regulate the range of weapons. Not to mention, many people enjoy competitive long range target shooting.

You say that guns (especially for hunting) should not be more technologically advanced then what my grandpa had 50 years ago. To me, this goes against every principle regarding innovation and improvement. Its like saying that cars were fine 50 years ago so we should stop designing new cars. 50 years ago, people were completly content with typewriters, so why do we have computers now? Because it is a natural progression of technology to make things more efficient and effective. For example, I could go duck hunting with my grandfather's winchester model 1200 loaded with lead shot, or I could use my Beretta Xtrema2, which is not only semiautomatic and waterproof, but also can safely shoot steel or tungston shot, which is far safer for the environment than lead shot. Or I could hunt elk with some old lead tip ammo, but I would much prefer to use bonded or monometal bullets because they help ensure a quicker and more humane kill. If the goal of a hunter is to kill an animal as humanely as possible and the point of the gun is to kill the animal, then wouldn't it make sense for the hunter to want the best possible gun to kill the animal in the most humane way possible?

Finally, I would like to ask if you have had any previous exporsure to firearms. I do not mean this in a condescending way or to say that you are not qualified to discuss guns if you do not have experience with them. I just want to gain a little insight into why you believe what you do. If you have not had exposure to firearms, I strongly recommend that you go to a gun store and talk with the staff there about the different types of firearms and their uses, as well as handle some of the guns. Then, go out with someone knowledgable about firearms and try shooting some guns. I have had many friends tell me that they are completely opposed to guns, but when they went shooting with me, they changed their mind and told me that the main reason why they didn't like guns before was because they did not know anything about guns or the shooting experience and thus had built an irrational fear around the unkown. Please do not take this the wrong way, I just think that it would be beneficial for everyone to try something new, especially if they originally don't want to.

[BlueFoot]

I'm one of the Canadian pro-gunists and I support them because of personal safety and being able to protect your family and/or belongings. I'd feel like people would not steal or pickpocket me if they saw a 1911 model A1 in a holster on my hip.

[Uniquemind]

I have to respectfully disagree with your above proposed regulations for a number of reasons. As conservative as it makes me sound, I really don't like anyone--let alone the government--telling me what is acceptable for me to do and own. Now I mean this withing reason because I am not advocating for the right to buy crack and a rocket launcher at Walmart, but I do think that I shouldn't have to defend my life choices against someone else's standards. For example, if I want to get married to a man or buy a Bugatti, I should be allowed to do so because it really is no one's business about how I spend my life.

On the issue of certain scopes, guns, bullets, etc. being inappropriate for civilian ownership, I agree to a certain extent. I will agree that civilians should not have access to bullets specificallly designed to penetrate body armor (BTW, I don't think I have ever seen this type of ammo advertised or sold and I am not even sure it is legal). You mention that sniper rifles that shoot a long distance should be banned. Well considering that a .22LR round will travel over a mile, it is completely impractical to try to regulate the range of weapons. Not to mention, many people enjoy competitive long range target shooting.

You say that guns (especially for hunting) should not be more technologically advanced then what my grandpa had 50 years ago. To me, this goes against every principle regarding innovation and improvement. Its like saying that cars were fine 50 years ago so we should stop designing new cars. 50 years ago, people were completly content with typewriters, so why do we have computers now? Because it is a natural progression of technology to make things more efficient and effective. For example, I could go duck hunting with my grandfather's winchester model 1200 loaded with lead shot, or I could use my Beretta Xtrema2, which is not only semiautomatic and waterproof, but also can safely shoot steel or tungston shot, which is far safer for the environment than lead shot. Or I could hunt elk with some old lead tip ammo, but I would much prefer to use bonded or monometal bullets because they help ensure a quicker and more humane kill. If the goal of a hunter is to kill an animal as humanely as possible and the point of the gun is to kill the animal, then wouldn't it make sense for the hunter to want the best possible gun to kill the animal in the most humane way possible?

Finally, I would like to ask if you have had any previous exporsure to firearms. I do not mean this in a condescending way or to say that you are not qualified to discuss guns if you do not have experience with them. I just want to gain a little insight into why you believe what you do. If you have not had exposure to firearms, I strongly recommend that you go to a gun store and talk with the staff there about the different types of firearms and their uses, as well as handle some of the guns. Then, go out with someone knowledgable about firearms and try shooting some guns. I have had many friends tell me that they are completely opposed to guns, but when they went shooting with me, they changed their mind and told me that the main reason why they didn't like guns before was because they did not know anything about guns or the shooting experience and thus had built an irrational fear around the unkown. Please do not take this the wrong way, I just think that it would be beneficial for everyone to try something new, especially if they originally don't want to.

No offense taken I get the core point of your message and will concede that my issue with guns isn't based in an irrational fear of them, but rather my upset with gun culture has to do from the concept of people believing they have a blank check when it comes to "human rights" or philosophical ideals emphasized in a broad stroke across contextually different comparison.




For instance there is a bit of a fallacy to compare improvements to car and computer tech, to compare it to improvements in Gun design and tech.


The core difference has to do with each objects respective intent and the purpose of the object.


Cars and computers are almost the same thing now, as computers are in almost everything because of the efficiency they provide, but personal computers are a multi-purpose with a lesser dependence on context, whereas guns are primarily used for the sole purpose of killing, with context alone defining that act of killing being one of self-defense, recreational hunting, or a crime/accident tragedy.


I see gun ownership as a privilege, not a blank check right, that should have age caps on it much like driving and owning a car has age thresholds on it.


Within the United States you've got companies who specifically target children, whose rational sound minds and critical thinking skills aren't fully developed yet,
with their first real lethal kid sized gun.

There was a family a year or two ago, who had a kid sized gun from this company, who accidentally shot and killed his kid sister with this gun. It's colorization and scalar sizing is meant for kids but it is a real gun.

Responsible gun ownership and learning how to shoot can all be learned within controlled settings where the issues of gun ownership and storage are taken out of the picture. Until the frontal lobes of the brain are more sound.

--

The premise behind "people kill people", is true, but it is a misnomer in the sense that all people's judgement or sense of viewing the world is equal to begin with OR that brain injury or mental illness or radicalization has warped their perspective values of themselves or other people.


Not all people are equal, and the problem with pro-gun culture is that they have no will to fix the error in the second Amendment to acknowledge or identify the responsible good gun owners from the bad gun owners who give everyone a bad reputation.


I'm singling out people who have records of emotional outbursts where rational control of themselves is lost.

I'm talking about those who have psychosis breaks from reality and probably don't meant to kill people, but their hallucinating their killing some demon, when in reality their stabbing or shoot their own family member or neighbor.



Surely a more intensive backround check incorporating algorithms analyzing public safety, buying habits, logistics and social network data can help prevent bad guys from getting guns in the first place. (Exhibit A: George Zimmerman > high ego, temper, history of defying authority, plays vigilante, has a history of calling 911, along with domestic violence history).

Because here's the thing, the only reason the good guys need the better more advanced gun, is almost always a reaction to wanting to one-up or equal the playing field against the bad guys with guns, it's an ad-nauseum spiral of infinity; great for profit.


The true origin of the spiral is the only way to stop the root of the problem and that is gun manufacturers and sellers, need to find a way to compromise with public safety even if it eats into their bottom line.

----

I bet you if you really crunched the statistics and numbers for certain criminal behaviors a pattern of preferred gun specs and features will emerge that appeal to the bad people, compared to other sales and features from casual collectors, hunting hobbiests, and general family friendly shooting range outings.


I take a precision scissor approach to issues regarding gun rights and issues, not broad based bans on them.

It has to be smart and precise with sound reason.

[DriveAlive]

No offense taken I get the core point of your message and will concede that my issue with guns isn't based in an irrational fear of them, but rather my upset with gun culture has to do from the concept of people believing they have a blank check when it comes to "human rights" or philosophical ideals emphasized in a broad stroke across contextually different comparison.




For instance there is a bit of a fallacy to compare improvements to car and computer tech, to compare it to improvements in Gun design and tech.


The core difference has to do with each objects respective intent and the purpose of the object.


Cars and computers are almost the same thing now, as computers are in almost everything because of the efficiency they provide, but personal computers are a multi-purpose with a lesser dependence on context, whereas guns are primarily used for the sole purpose of killing, with context alone defining that act of killing being one of self-defense, recreational hunting, or a crime/accident tragedy.


I see gun ownership as a privilege, not a blank check right, that should have age caps on it much like driving and owning a car has age thresholds on it.


Within the United States you've got companies who specifically target children, whose rational sound minds and critical thinking skills aren't fully developed yet,
with their first real lethal kid sized gun.

There was a family a year or two ago, who had a kid sized gun from this company, who accidentally shot and killed his kid sister with this gun. It's colorization and scalar sizing is meant for kids but it is a real gun.

Responsible gun ownership and learning how to shoot can all be learned within controlled settings where the issues of gun ownership and storage are taken out of the picture. Until the frontal lobes of the brain are more sound.

--

The premise behind "people kill people", is true, but it is a misnomer in the sense that all people's judgement or sense of viewing the world is equal to begin with OR that brain injury or mental illness or radicalization has warped their perspective values of themselves or other people.


Not all people are equal, and the problem with pro-gun culture is that they have no will to fix the error in the second Amendment to acknowledge or identify the responsible good gun owners from the bad gun owners who give everyone a bad reputation.


I'm singling out people who have records of emotional outbursts where rational control of themselves is lost.

I'm talking about those who have psychosis breaks from reality and probably don't meant to kill people, but their hallucinating their killing some demon, when in reality their stabbing or shoot their own family member or neighbor.



Surely a more intensive backround check incorporating algorithms analyzing public safety, buying habits, logistics and social network data can help prevent bad guys from getting guns in the first place. (Exhibit A: George Zimmerman > high ego, temper, history of defying authority, plays vigilante, has a history of calling 911, along with domestic violence history).

Because here's the thing, the only reason the good guys need the better more advanced gun, is almost always a reaction to wanting to one-up or equal the playing field against the bad guys with guns, it's an ad-nauseum spiral of infinity; great for profit.


The true origin of the spiral is the only way to stop the root of the problem and that is gun manufacturers and sellers, need to find a way to compromise with public safety even if it eats into their bottom line.

----

I bet you if you really crunched the statistics and numbers for certain criminal behaviors a pattern of preferred gun specs and features will emerge that appeal to the bad people, compared to other sales and features from casual collectors, hunting hobbiests, and general family friendly shooting range outings.


I take a precision scissor approach to issues regarding gun rights and issues, not broad based bans on them.

It has to be smart and precise with sound reason.
First of all, I have absolutely no problem with guns designed for children. If you are a parent and want to get your child involved in shooting/hunting, it makes sense to get them a gun in the proper size with easy operation and in a managable cailber. If the gun is in an attractive color, it might encourage them to want to shoot the gun and take responsibility for its maintenance. Trust me, nothing turns a person off ffrom shooting/hunting more than being a kid and shooting a gun that is way too big and kicks way too hard. No one is saying that kids should be allowed to buy guns, but I think that if you wanted to encourage people to have a healthy respect for firearms, introducing them to guns as children is a great way to do so.

On your proposal to create some sort of algorithm that allows the government to gather and analyze all information about a person and then determine whether or not they might use the gun to commit a crime before allowing them to buy one, I think that it sound like way too much government contrl and would be straight fascism. The 2nd Amendment gives all legal americans the right to keep and bear arms. Arguably, this was done to prevent a tyrannical government. By giving the government unilateral power to get all information of all people and then use it to determine whether or not a person can have certain rights even if the person has not actually committed any crimes is pure tyranny. Its like trying to create the police from Minority Report but without the ability to see the future. I can tell that you subscribe to the better safe than sorry philosophy and do not mind if the govenment has power over civilians lives.

[Uniquemind]

First of all, I have absolutely no problem with guns designed for children. If you are a parent and want to get your child involved in shooting/hunting, it makes sense to get them a gun in the proper size with easy operation and in a managable cailber. If the gun is in an attractive color, it might encourage them to want to shoot the gun and take responsibility for its maintenance. Trust me, nothing turns a person off ffrom shooting/hunting more than being a kid and shooting a gun that is way too big and kicks way too hard. No one is saying that kids should be allowed to buy guns, but I think that if you wanted to encourage people to have a healthy respect for firearms, introducing them to guns as children is a great way to do so.

On your proposal to create some sort of algorithm that allows the government to gather and analyze all information about a person and then determine whether or not they might use the gun to commit a crime before allowing them to buy one, I think that it sound like way too much government contrl and would be straight fascism. The 2nd Amendment gives all legal americans the right to keep and bear arms. Arguably, this was done to prevent a tyrannical government. By giving the government unilateral power to get all information of all people and then use it to determine whether or not a person can have certain rights even if the person has not actually committed any crimes is pure tyranny. Its like trying to create the police from Minority Report but without the ability to see the future. I can tell that you subscribe to the better safe than sorry philosophy and do not mind if the govenment has power over civilians lives.



But that's not based in as much logic because it's based on an arbitrary belief that doesn't take into account that not all people are equal in the head.

The alternative is making no effort to combine mental health knowledge and gun sales.


By de facto, it means your telling families who have lost loved ones to preventable situations "tough my rights were more important than your lost loved one".

Ultimately people are saying that, and in almost all cases families who have lost a child to a gun accident because they provided the gun in the household want to take their actions back.

I rarely see situations, strike that I've never seen a situation where a parent or guardian says "whoops well I provided the gun so losing a loved one is an accident was a natural consequence of my actions". Even really strong gun supporters falter emotionally on where they stand on those rights when they themselves experience that sort of loss or tragedy.


Also defending yourself with a gun also usually means you didn't get caught by the element of surprise, which is probably the biggest advantage bad guys have over victims and good guys.




Like I said the second amendment and the constitution HAVE flaws that need fixing and as it stands it's defenders treat it like a sacred text that's inflexible and that any problems with how it is now is so doomsday to fool or even tweak it.

It's fear based, rather than pragmatic problem solving mentality of tweaking and undoing a document for good logical reasons.

[Benelli]

(Based on my personal beliefs)

I do not see a problem with gun ownership. But I do believe there should be steps taken to help prevent a gun getting into the wrong hands.

For example, a mental evaluation prior to gun ownership/legal use (for those who are not old enough to own a gun but are looking into hunting and so on, under the supervision of an experienced gun owner and user.) As well as drug tests, and confirmed knowledge of how firearms operate and the understanding of how dangerous they can be if used incorrectly (an example of this would be hunters education which you have to take starting at age 15 in my state.)

Firearms are not a problem if in the hands of a capable, logical person. Or if being used under the supervision and teaching of an experienced shooter. No matter what people choose to do there will always be accident resulting in death and injury due to guns. But that also applies to cars, knives, and so on. But there are a few things we could do to help prevent the incorrect use, and ignorance that comes with firearms.

[DriveAlive]

But that's not based in as much logic because it's based on an arbitrary belief that doesn't take into account that not all people are equal in the head.

The alternative is making no effort to combine mental health knowledge and gun sales.


By de facto, it means your telling families who have lost loved ones to preventable situations "tough my rights were more important than your lost loved one".

Ultimately people are saying that, and in almost all cases families who have lost a child to a gun accident because they provided the gun in the household want to take their actions back.

I rarely see situations, strike that I've never seen a situation where a parent or guardian says "whoops well I provided the gun so losing a loved one is an accident was a natural consequence of my actions". Even really strong gun supporters falter emotionally on where they stand on those rights when they themselves experience that sort of loss or tragedy.


Also defending yourself with a gun also usually means you didn't get caught by the element of surprise, which is probably the biggest advantage bad guys have over victims and good guys.




Like I said the second amendment and the constitution HAVE flaws that need fixing and as it stands it's defenders treat it like a sacred text that's inflexible and that any problems with how it is now is so doomsday to fool or even tweak it.

It's fear based, rather than pragmatic problem solving mentality of tweaking and undoing a document for good logical reasons.
I hate to be that guy, but I do think that rights are more important than the lives of the few. Before you jump all over me let me explain myself. First, all of your examples of people's children accidentally shooting themselves does not mean that guns should be banned. It simply means that parental negligence and accidents ahve occured involving a lethal weapon. Think how many kids every year drown in pools because parents are negligent and the child accidentally falls in. How come no one is calling for pools to be banned? Simply put, you shouldn't punish the entire country because a few people were unresponsible.

This is what I am saying about rights being more important than a few lives. Im not trying to be dramatic, but this is sort of the principle that America was founded on and every war has been about. When America entered WWII, it was because we thought that the value of preserving our rights and freedoms outweighed the cost of lives. If we really wanted to subscribed to the whole "If it saves just one life" philosophy, then we could start some sort of 1984-esque society. There could be government surveillance in every home, all cars would be automated, all art and would be government approved, and the military would enforce martial law in the streets.

I know Im being a little over the top, but this is what you are calling for whether you realize it or not. This is not the America I want ot live in. I am all for promoting public safety and gun safety. There should be some form of basic background check when buying a firearm. But there is a point when personal responsibility must come into play. The government should not be given unilateral power over all in order to protect some people from themselves. I am not willing to sacrifice liberty for a little safety. This is the same logic that convinced the Germans to support Hitler and the American people to support the Patriot Act and government surveillance.

[Uniquemind]

(Based on my personal beliefs)

I do not see a problem with gun ownership. But I do believe there should be steps taken to help prevent a gun getting into the wrong hands.

For example, a mental evaluation prior to gun ownership/legal use (for those who are not old enough to own a gun but are looking into hunting and so on, under the supervision of an experienced gun owner and user.) As well as drug tests, and confirmed knowledge of how firearms operate and the understanding of how dangerous they can be if used incorrectly (an example of this would be hunters education which you have to take starting at age 15 in my state.)

Firearms are not a problem if in the hands of a capable, logical person. Or if being used under the supervision and teaching of an experienced shooter. No matter what people choose to do there will always be accident resulting in death and injury due to guns. But that also applies to cars, knives, and so on. But there are a few things we could do to help prevent the incorrect use, and ignorance that comes with firearms.


^This is the concept I've been trying to drive home.


American logic is this:

Legal age to have consensual sex: 18


Legal age to own and shoot a gun, and perhaps even purchase a gun: blank check no restrictions otherwise it's infringing on 2nd amendment rights.


Where the heck is the consistency and common sense other than the fact that our culture has sacred positions of debate.


I hate to be that guy, but I do think that rights are more important than the lives of the few. Before you jump all over me let me explain myself. First, all of your examples of people's children accidentally shooting themselves does not mean that guns should be banned. It simply means that parental negligence and accidents ahve occured involving a lethal weapon. Think how many kids every year drown in pools because parents are negligent and the child accidentally falls in. How come no one is calling for pools to be banned? Simply put, you shouldn't punish the entire country because a few people were unresponsible.

This is what I am saying about rights being more important than a few lives. Im not trying to be dramatic, but this is sort of the principle that America was founded on and every war has been about. When America entered WWII, it was because we thought that the value of preserving our rights and freedoms outweighed the cost of lives. If we really wanted to subscribed to the whole "If it saves just one life" philosophy, then we could start some sort of 1984-esque society. There could be government surveillance in every home, all cars would be automated, all art and would be government approved, and the military would enforce martial law in the streets.

I know Im being a little over the top, but this is what you are calling for whether you realize it or not. This is not the America I want ot live in. I am all for promoting public safety and gun safety. There should be some form of basic background check when buying a firearm. But there is a point when personal responsibility must come into play. The government should not be given unilateral power over all in order to protect some people from themselves. I am not willing to sacrifice liberty for a little safety. This is the same logic that convinced the Germans to support Hitler and the American people to support the Patriot Act and government surveillance.

Again the primary purpose of a pool is not to end the life of a living entity. Like the computer analogy it falls flat for the same reason as a comparison.



Also I never outright advocated a outright ban on ALL guns, remember I always argued a precision approach and restrictions on marketing guns to young kids, and putting in place measures to safeguard guns from falling into unscrupulous hands (criminals, those mentally I'll and are not in a rational state of mind).


Most gun owners are fine and responsible, so that's not the problem here.


What the problem is the fear regarding attempting to solve a problem out of the sacredness of not implementing any form of change to address a real issue the status quo presents us.

Every slippery slope argument about rights being infringed is a illogical position that gets it's power from fear and pride.

---

Parents and guardians have a huge role of responsibility but given the totality society already expects of parents with bringing in income, basic science says optimal human functioning REQUIRES 7-9 hours of sleep a NIGHT!

American culture considers lots of these REQUIREMENTS as luxury entitlements in the social Darwinist dominated political-economic business sphere.

Parents aren't necessarily deliberately negligent, they are worn out and that combined with gun selling and marketing culture gives you scenarios where you cannot place all the blame on parents or guardians at the end of the day.


The only reason why the law and casual debates go this route is because it's a convenient counter argument.

But in a broader scheme of things it is not fair and American culture other ideal is striving for a PERFECT union.

You cannot strive for perfection when the definition of conservatism resists change of broken systemic failures.

You fix what's broken, or rather tweak it, and you keep elements of policies or laws or ideals that worked well and balanced liberty with safety and freedom.


That's why I didn't take the position of a broad ban. I am only arguing precision changes.


--

Also no to the hitler thing, he came to power for a myriad of different reasons that came together in a perfect storm partly due to the fact the German people who weren't the same generation of citizen who initially harmed Britain and the other allied powers, oppressed the people so bad that when the first emotional scapegoat (the Jews) arrived the bitter Germans of that time jumped on it.

Also you are forgetting that a minor change of selective bans on certain type of guns, (not all) and a more comprehensive background check that takes into account criminal history and mental health of an individual as they attempt to buy a gun.

Has a lot more real understandable logic to such a policy and change in law than the more extreme examples of martial law.


You also have to contend with developed countries who have implemented gun restrictions in a more serious form that what I'm advocating here, and they haven't slipped the entire slippery slope of "1984".

You won't know if you go that far unless you TRY the policy, and purge it later if it goes to far. Scale it back it's a policy and a law that is as amendable as current law now.

What gridlocks change is fear of change like it's some earth shattering deal, it's totally overhyped.

[Uniquemind]

Let me also clarify different crime profiles that need to be addressed differently, whose only common denominator is that a gun was involved:

1. Gun accidents

2. Murder 1st degree with gun

3. Serial killings involving guns

4. Manslaughter

5. Armed home invasion (intent ranges from and/or: robbery, rape, kidnapping)

6. Drive by shootings (via car or via shoot of a residence)

7. Mass shootings (sandy hook, columbine, etc...)

All of these different crimes need to be weighed and measured differently.

From crime statistics and data you can extrapolate patterns and preferences of gun choice, where it originated and then fell into the hands of criminals, and a smarter more budget efficient law enforcement and the general public and gun sellers can make the world a safer place to HELP make it harder for the individuals of this Earth who are irresponsible with guns or are unable to be of sound mind, to harm you or someone else.



In fact pro-gun enthusiasts should support such measures because it jives directly with the concept of "people kill people" and addresses the issue of the bad gun owners who give everyone a bad reputation and guns a bad name.


The problem is there are and have been private studies and people who tested the current backround check system and it's too easy to lie on it to pass.


The controversy comes from humans judging other people.

Let a algorithm and a computer that is patched into mental health, and criminal records do the calculation, and let that programing be inspired by common sense.

If you have a history of violent crime or domestic abuse: no pass

If you have a clean record: pass

If you have a history of really strong breaks from reality or have had to be hospitalized because of schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder: no pass.

If they have a mental disorder but manage it well like clockwork and their issues are resolved for a number of years: pass

---

It's that simple and that easy to prevent slippery slope consequences. But fear is preventing rational common sense discussions.


Like in "American Sniper" the movie and in real life, such a smart guy took a mentally ill person who had PTSD out to a shooting range, and the other guy they were trying to help killed them despite their well intentions.



You also might argue knives kill people or that anything can be used as a weapon.
True but certain guns and certain features offer tactical and killing efficiency that you want to keep out of the wrong hands as much as possible.

As gun tech gets better the analogy between a gun and another method of killing becomes less and less a fair comparison due to that differential in efficiency and tactical ability.

It's why you don't use karate or a knife to kill wild game.

[DriveAlive]

I might be misinterpreting what you are saying, but it sounds like you believe that gunmakers are targeting guns to children, who then have the "right" to buy them. You think that the pro-gun side is arguing for this. This is not true. You must be 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a handgun. Also, the point of marketing a gun for children is not to make children want to buy it, but rather the parents of children who they want to involve in the shooting sports. Whats so wrong with that?

Secondly, you assume that gun crime can be resolved by determing the types of guns most often bought by criminals. The problem with that is criminals most of the time do not buy their guns legally. They steal their guns from legal gun owners. The instances in which they went they had someone leagally buy the gun and then give it to them still doesn't say anything about what guns need to be banned. Criminals arent gun enthusiasts. They just want to get the gun for cheap and be able to kill people. It is too much gov. control to say that "sorry, all glocks are banned because statistics show that criminals use them more than other guns."

Instead of focusing all of these resources on building this invasive gov. surveillance network and compute arbiter of constitutional rights, why don't you leave our privacy alone and instead use these resources to target the actual problems that you have stated are the cause: mental illness. Since Reagan, this country has not provided proper gov. funding for those with illness, especially after his cuts to Medicaid that affected those who suffered from mental illness and lived in poverty. So without any aid for the mentally ill or those in poverty, why is everyone so surprised that a few crazy people decide to shoot a bunch of people. Don't blame guns for society's problems. You can argue all you want on how it would decrease crime etc., but the truth is that unless you solve the root social issues that lead to violence, any sort of restriction like you are calliing for would only infringe on the privacy and freedom of every American.

[Uniquemind]

I might be misinterpreting what you are saying, but it sounds like you believe that gunmakers are targeting guns to children, who then have the "right" to buy them. You think that the pro-gun side is arguing for this. This is not true. You must be 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a handgun. Also, the point of marketing a gun for children is not to make children want to buy it, but rather the parents of children who they want to involve in the shooting sports. Whats so wrong with that?

Secondly, you assume that gun crime can be resolved by determing the types of guns most often bought by criminals. The problem with that is criminals most of the time do not buy their guns legally. They steal their guns from legal gun owners. The instances in which they went they had someone leagally buy the gun and then give it to them still doesn't say anything about what guns need to be banned. Criminals arent gun enthusiasts. They just want to get the gun for cheap and be able to kill people. It is too much gov. control to say that "sorry, all glocks are banned because statistics show that criminals use them more than other guns."

Instead of focusing all of these resources on building this invasive gov. surveillance network and compute arbiter of constitutional rights, why don't you leave our privacy alone and instead use these resources to target the actual problems that you have stated are the cause: mental illness. Since Reagan, this country has not provided proper gov. funding for those with illness, especially after his cuts to Medicaid that affected those who suffered from mental illness and lived in poverty. So without any aid for the mentally ill or those in poverty, why is everyone so surprised that a few crazy people decide to shoot a bunch of people. Don't blame guns for society's problems. You can argue all you want on how it would decrease crime etc., but the truth is that unless you solve the root social issues that lead to violence, any sort of restriction like you are calliing for would only infringe on the privacy and freedom of every American.

You means since President Carter we haven't had proper funding for mental health care infrastructure. President Reagan's the one that did all the cuts at pressure to cut the budget spending by Republicans.


But yeah I am not arguing crime would be eliminated but that's also what an affidavit would help fix.

It would help find those who legally buy the gun and then pass it off to the black network.

It would also gather data on repeat offenders who erroneously claim it was "stolen" when really they might be part of a fast track ring to get guns underground markets.

Glocks, no we can't ban those.

I'm not irrational to blame guns alone, I think in doing a fair job blaming all aspects of the problem, but I'm not putting anything on a sacred pedestal. That's where we are differing.


Also ironically the concept of good guys with guns are victims of bad guys stealing them suggests good guys with guns aren't very successful at using the guys to shoot the bad guy before said left happens.


Also I don't think it's that invasive IF it's done fairly and with common sense criteria with mental health and criminal history.

Like I said I don't think you are comfortable with gun merchants selling a gun to someone with mental issues IF the merchant knew or had knowledge of that person's past that raises strong alarm. You did dodge answering this question with a generic statement about not liking the concept of this type of background check.

You also failed to address how current background checks are a joke of a piece of paper that can be lied on.

--

Also there's nothing wrong with getting your kids learn how to shoot. But that can be done with taking them to the shooting range in a more controlled setting with their teacher or classes or what have you.

Getting your 5 to 7-year-old a gun knowing that science says their brain doesn't have full capacity to make or forecast consequences of actions, despite how well you teach it, it won't necessarily stick, is almost a forum of parental negligence.

You can tell them guns can hurt someone really bad, and some kids get that, but a lot just will not comprehend that it's not a toy, and it takes only one instance of absentmindedness, or disobedience from a parent or child to end in tragic results.

Keep your kids alive so you can enjoy owning guns + shooting with them when their older and mentally a FULL person.

If you want to have that experience young gun ranges should offer kid sized compatible guns to shoot with but it shouldn't be loose around the house in the way that they are now, even under lock and key kids tend to watch and see where it's all kept.


There's no experience you really lose here except eliminating a dangerous risk that isn't theoretical because many home accidents involving guns happen at the hands of children.



(Remember I already countered scapegoating parents for the sole burden of carrying responsibility given society's totality of demands upon limitations of what a human can really function optimally at, and that there's not enough time in the day to manage everything)


---


Let me also add that restrictions on the 1st amendment do exist yet that has not led to a Orwellian doomsday of liberty that "1984" depicts.

Also a computer would be impartial to bias.

I think people don't like the concept of being told to do or not do stuff, and that one issue of pride is really blinding people to fairly discuss some options that really should be on the table in this debate issue because they just make sense.

Provided nobody is arguing gun crimes will disappear all together.

But scientific method would try this policy get data on it's effectiveness given reasonable time given that effects of such a policy won't be seen for a while given the circulation of guns and ammo already out there. Then you repeal or amend the bad stuff and keep what works. If none of it works you repeal it entirely but you at least try the policy in good faith with execution not disingenuous implementation dragging your feet.

[DriveAlive]

You means since President Carter we haven't had proper funding for mental health care infrastructure. President Reagan's the one that did all the cuts at pressure to cut the budget spending by Republicans.


But yeah I am not arguing crime would be eliminated but that's also what an affidavit would help fix.

It would help find those who legally buy the gun and then pass it off to the black network.

It would also gather data on repeat offenders who erroneously claim it was "stolen" when really they might be part of a fast track ring to get guns underground markets.

Glocks, no we can't ban those.

I'm not irrational to blame guns alone, I think in doing a fair job blaming all aspects of the problem, but I'm not putting anything on a sacred pedestal. That's where we are differing.


Also ironically the concept of good guys with guns are victims of bad guys stealing them suggests good guys with guns aren't very successful at using the guys to shoot the bad guy before said left happens.


Also I don't think it's that invasive IF it's done fairly and with common sense criteria with mental health and criminal history.

Like I said I don't think you are comfortable with gun merchants selling a gun to someone with mental issues IF the merchant knew or had knowledge of that person's past that raises strong alarm. You did dodge answering this question with a generic statement about not liking the concept of this type of background check.

You also failed to address how current background checks are a joke of a piece of paper that can be lied on.

--

Also there's nothing wrong with getting your kids learn how to shoot. But that can be done with taking them to the shooting range in a more controlled setting with their teacher or classes or what have you.

Getting your 5 to 7-year-old a gun knowing that science says their brain doesn't have full capacity to make or forecast consequences of actions, despite how well you teach it, it won't necessarily stick, is almost a forum of parental negligence.

You can tell them guns can hurt someone really bad, and some kids get that, but a lot just will not comprehend that it's not a toy, and it takes only one instance of absentmindedness, or disobedience from a parent or child to end in tragic results.

Keep your kids alive so you can enjoy owning guns + shooting with them when their older and mentally a FULL person.

If you want to have that experience young gun ranges should offer kid sized compatible guns to shoot with but it shouldn't be loose around the house in the way that they are now, even under lock and key kids tend to watch and see where it's all kept.


There's no experience you really lose here except eliminating a dangerous risk that isn't theoretical because many home accidents involving guns happen at the hands of children.



(Remember I already countered scapegoating parents for the sole burden of carrying responsibility given society's totality of demands upon limitations of what a human can really function optimally at, and that there's not enough time in the day to manage everything)


---


Let me also add that restrictions on the 1st amendment do exist yet that has not led to a Orwellian doomsday of liberty that "1984" depicts.

Also a computer would be impartial to bias.

I think people don't like the concept of being told to do or not do stuff, and that one issue of pride is really blinding people to fairly discuss some options that really should be on the table in this debate issue because they just make sense.

Provided nobody is arguing gun crimes will disappear all together.

But scientific method would try this policy get data on it's effectiveness given reasonable time given that effects of such a policy won't be seen for a while given the circulation of guns and ammo already out there. Then you repeal or amend the bad stuff and keep what works. If none of it works you repeal it entirely but you at least try the policy in good faith with execution not disingenuous implementation dragging your feet.

First of all, you can lie all you want on a background check, but that doesn't change the fact that they actually do check the stuff you answer before you are allowed to buy the guns (in states were background checks are required). My problem with background checks as they currently stand is that I believe they can be used to create a sort of de facto list of certain groups of gun owners for government surveillance. For example, when you buy a gun and fill out a background check, there are two questions about race. First question is what is your race and the second is if you are hispanic. You also have to give your age, gender, and address. What is the point of these questions if not to racially group gun owners. Now the government can say that there are hispanics in a poor neigborhood with guns. Sorry, but I don't like this sort of gov. knowledge one bit and Im sure that the Jews that were put in Nazi ghettos would agree with me. Or you can look at how the jews in the Warsaw ghettos secretly armed themselves and overthrew their nazi captors.

I group up with guns in my house and so did many of my friends. None of us have ever shot anyone because when we were younger, our parents kept the guns locked up and out of our acccess. Just the same as what parents do with alcohol. Its not the job of the gov. to be a nanny and baby the people. Too many people think that everything will be done for them. Its like all of those stupid personal injury lawsuits like I didn't know the coffee would be hot stuff that pisses me off.

I am all for requiring a person to complete a background check in which information such as a criminal record and mental history is looked up before the purchase is completed. With that said, creating a computor to predict whether someone will use the gun for crime is just nonsensical to me.

[Uniquemind]

First of all, you can lie all you want on a background check, but that doesn't change the fact that they actually do check the stuff you answer before you are allowed to buy the guns (in states were background checks are required). My problem with background checks as they currently stand is that I believe they can be used to create a sort of de facto list of certain groups of gun owners for government surveillance. For example, when you buy a gun and fill out a background check, there are two questions about race. First question is what is your race and the second is if you are hispanic. You also have to give your age, gender, and address. What is the point of these questions if not to racially group gun owners. Now the government can say that there are hispanics in a poor neigborhood with guns. Sorry, but I don't like this sort of gov. knowledge one bit and Im sure that the Jews that were put in Nazi ghettos would agree with me. Or you can look at how the jews in the Warsaw ghettos secretly armed themselves and overthrew their nazi captors.

I group up with guns in my house and so did many of my friends. None of us have ever shot anyone because when we were younger, our parents kept the guns locked up and out of our access. Just the same as what parents do with alcohol. Its not the job of the gov. to be a nanny and baby the people. Too many people think that everything will be done for them. Its like all of those stupid personal injury lawsuits like I didn't know the coffee would be hot stuff that pisses me off.

I am all for requiring a person to complete a background check in which information such as a criminal record and mental history is looked up before the purchase is completed. With that said, creating a computer to predict whether someone will use the gun for crime is just nonsensical to me.


I agree with some of the main points of upset that also upset me as well.

But I have conceeded that that debate about information gathering is lost unless as an individual decide to live an Amish lifestyle.

Any of that information you stated giving that rubs you the wrong way is already collected in either two ways:

1. By government

2. By a private entity (a business corporation)

Who either gets hacked or sells that information to other firms to help crunch numbers to maximize their customer knowledge base, develop anti-fraud policies, to measure psychology and demographics possibly to see or predict the best possible campaign slogans and talking points candidates need to use when trying to appeal to voters in that region or raise more campaign money.

Information is already out there, and like guns, the issue is how it is used and who specifically is using it.

But it's rarely lethal, and it IS reversible, albiet a pain sometimes.

The fact remains is that ship has sailed and the debate for that topic is long gone.


--

No offense but lol the alcohol example....cuz we know under 21 people haven't raided their parents stockpiles.

And we also know that just because, I already admitted most gun owners are responsible (obviously you're in this majority), you and your friends were/are safe, means that other households are in the same situation to do that which we know isn't the case as I've explained in a former post. (Differences in other dynamics in life that affect parents pragmatic ability to parent given societies stressors and frankly illogical arbitrary demands).


There are natural limitations to having only 24 hours a day, 7 of which should be devoted to sleep, a couple more for logistical travel to and from work, and then the rest school or work, and maybe some down time.


Also I agree regarding that there's a lot of stupid, lazy out there, but entitlement isn't what we're discussing in this gun rights thread.


Also you've dodged the other points iI made that as a society we've already logically accepted that some rights have restrictions on them and that isn't a violation of human rights nor is it the level of facism of Nazi Germany.


--

But you've agree with my general view that we need a more comprehensive background check for gun purchases, and let me add in, let's remove some of those stupid questions in the background check policies as well.



My main issue is consistency.

A good counter argument why background checks don't work, is because they are implemented inconsistently at a state level, which makes it too easy for the public to circumvent the check in other states where it doesn't matter and not enforced.

A good measure of if this policy works to reduce (not eliminate) certain types of gun crimes and tragedies, is if a nationwide policy was in place so one would have to go through more trouble (foreign puchase) to get past the background check.

[DriveAlive]

I would be fine with a nationwide policiy to an extent. The reason why I dont think it will happen is because in some areas (like alaska) guns are more essential to daily life and so access to them should be easier than a very urbanized area. Also, that is a lot of power to give to one government entity. I don't know what questions I am supposedly dodging or if you are just unhappy with my answers. How bout this, you ask me five very specific questions regarding very specific gun regulations and then I will answer them as specifically as possible and vice versa (questions like do you think magazines should be limited to x number of rounds, etc.) because maybe thihs would avoid this supposed question dodging.

[Uniquemind]

I would be fine with a nationwide policiy to an extent. The reason why I dont think it will happen is because in some areas (like alaska) guns are more essential to daily life and so access to them should be easier than a very urbanized area. Also, that is a lot of power to give to one government entity. I don't know what questions I am supposedly dodging or if you are just unhappy with my answers. How bout this, you ask me five very specific questions regarding very specific gun regulations and then I will answer them as specifically as possible and vice versa (questions like do you think magazines should be limited to x number of rounds, etc.) because maybe thihs would avoid this supposed question dodging.

Yeah okay I'll consent to that format of debate with the exception of the questions I already stated but need to rephrase because they were more broadly philosophical.



The concept of infringing on God given rights, that are articulated in The Constitution: (ad let's admit the meaning of a lot of the Bill of Rights is broad and loosely defined which is why there's debates like this, with court precedent the deciding factor on how the law needs to be understood.)

1. We already in many court rulings acknowledge free speech has restrictions and it's protections are limited given certain logical scenarios in the context of public safety etc.


Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there are some restrictions on the 2nd amendment that are constitutional and do not cross that line that defines "right infringement".

It says broadly, "right to bear arms", but in modern day, that would assume all types of weapons should be available in American society for a household who could afford to buy and maintain them well.


One can argue that if you get your guns stolen, you didn't exercise your right correctly maintaining them, and failed your end of the contract with God with that right. (I am not arguing this though, it's impractical but I am pointing out loopholes in pro-gun pro-2nd amendment logic).


Wherefore, does the concept of don't change a thing about gun culture market place, is derived from the traditional treatment of the other Rights within the Constitution with respect to cultural change over time and technological change over time.

The answer I am arguing is it's not consistent and there is no basis to say restrictions in general, are by default an infringement on rights. A case by case basis will decide if it warrants a rights infringement and we'll take it from there.

Saying it's an infringement on rights, only because it's change that is emotionally upsetting is not a coherent counterargument alone.


The concept is already accepted if you bar or prevent any type of weapon from being freely bought on the public market, you either accept it or reject it entirely. You can go into deeper merit of each gun feature, and the merits of each feature for the uses and intent it has merit for, but it would probably be measured against a practical use VS want for it's luxury/worldliness VS safety issues in a 3-pronged type of rating system.

[DriveAlive]

Yeah okay I'll consent to that format of debate with the exception of the questions I already stated but need to rephrase because they were more broadly philosophical.



The concept of infringing on God given rights, that are articulated in The Constitution: (ad let's admit the meaning of a lot of the Bill of Rights is broad and loosely defined which is why there's debates like this, with court precedent the deciding factor on how the law needs to be understood.)

1. We already in many court rulings acknowledge free speech has restrictions and it's protections are limited given certain logical scenarios in the context of public safety etc.


Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there are some restrictions on the 2nd amendment that are constitutional and do not cross that line that defines "right infringement".

It says broadly, "right to bear arms", but in modern day, that would assume all types of weapons should be available in American society for a household who could afford to buy and maintain them well.


One can argue that if you get your guns stolen, you didn't exercise your right correctly maintaining them, and failed your end of the contract with God with that right. (I am not arguing this though, it's impractical but I am pointing out loopholes in pro-gun pro-2nd amendment logic).


Wherefore, does the concept of don't change a thing about gun culture market place, is derived from the traditional treatment of the other Rights within the Constitution with respect to cultural change over time and technological change over time.

The answer I am arguing is it's not consistent and there is no basis to say restrictions in general, are by default an infringement on rights. A case by case basis will decide if it warrants a rights infringement and we'll take it from there.

Saying it's an infringement on rights, only because it's change that is emotionally upsetting is not a coherent counterargument alone.


The concept is already accepted if you bar or prevent any type of weapon from being freely bought on the public market, you either accept it or reject it entirely. You can go into deeper merit of each gun feature, and the merits of each feature for the uses and intent it has merit for, but it would probably be measured against a practical use VS want for it's luxury/worldliness VS safety issues in a 3-pronged type of rating system.
Ii think that some people probably believe that but I have never said it in the forum. My point was that I disagreed with your calls for a gov. computer to predict criminals and the banning of specific firearms, ammo, or firearm features. Thats all.

[Uniquemind]

Ii think that some people probably believe that but I have never said it in the forum. My point was that I disagreed with your calls for a gov. computer to predict criminals and the banning of specific firearms, ammo, or firearm features. Thats all.

Meh I cared mostly about the background check being made smarter and more comprehensive.


---


Let me also add that we already as a society ACCEPT and enforce FORCEFUL imprisonment of individuals in the context of public safety in the event of an individual having a disease that is contagious that threatens public safety, EVEN IF that individual has done nothing wrong.

Your home will be searched, possessions taken, incinerated, social network and those you had contact with also treated the same way.



So this ship has sailed and this policy has been around for a while, yet the world hasn't fallen apart and become like Nazi Germany or like Stalin's Russia.


So the USA is capable of being practical with such power tools in policies.

[DriveAlive]

Meh I cared mostly about the background check being made smarter and more comprehensive.


---


Let me also add that we already as a society ACCEPT and enforce FORCEFUL imprisonment of individuals in the context of public safety in the event of an individual having a disease that is contagious that threatens public safety, EVEN IF that individual has done nothing wrong.

Your home will be searched, possessions taken, incinerated, social network and those you had contact with also treated the same way.



So this ship has sailed and this policy has been around for a while, yet the world hasn't fallen apart and become like Nazi Germany or like Stalin's Russia.


So the USA is capable of being practical with such power tools in policies.
You really don't see the problem with the gov. using a computer to Predict whether or not a person Might commit a crime and then treat that person as guilty of said crime?

[Uniquemind]

You really don't see the problem with the gov. using a computer to Predict whether or not a person Might commit a crime and then treat that person as guilty of said crime?



I never argued the program would go that far or that broad. I would argue against it if it did.

But when algorithms are as narrow and smart as they are now, I think the margins of moral error is narrowing given time to the point where it won't be a problem if you implement common sense into the program.

I have a problem with sane people who have shown responsibility and responsible gun management and ownership and responsibility in life in general being Minority Reported.

But no I think it makes logical sense to have that system in place when you are looking at a person's criminal history, and mental health history that demonstrates their aren't an equal to be trusted with a gun, due to their own actions in the past, which is something they had COMPLETE control over. Natural consequence, just like losing a right to drive. (Or even making a return of products to certain retailers past an expiration date or without a reciept)

[DriveAlive]

I never argued the program would go that far or that broad. I would argue against it if it did.

But when algorithms are as narrow and smart as they are now, I think the margins of moral error is narrowing given time to the point where it won't be a problem if you implement common sense into the program.

I have a problem with sane people who have shown responsibility and responsible gun management and ownership and responsibility in life in general being Minority Reported.

But no I think it makes logical sense to have that system in place when you are looking at a person's criminal history, and mental health history that demonstrates their aren't an equal to be trusted with a gun, due to their own actions in the past, which is something they had COMPLETE control over. Natural consequence, just like losing a right to drive. (Or even making a return of products to certain retailers past an expiration date or without a reciept)
While I probably would agree with you in practice, part of me wants to argue that if a person has served time in jail and was rehabilited, then they shouldnt be poblished for past transgressions. That is the point of going to jail: serving time, repaying your debt, and starting over. I know this is unrealistic but I think it.

And in addition, that is not what people in the anti-gun lobby are calling for. They are callling for bans on certain types of firearms and features because they believe that these are more likely to be used in crimes. You yourself have said previously that you think this type of regulation should be enacted.

[Uniquemind]

While I probably would agree with you in practice, part of me wants to argue that if a person has served time in jail and was rehabilited, then they shouldnt be poblished for past transgressions. That is the point of going to jail: serving time, repaying your debt, and starting over. I know this is unrealistic but I think it.

And in addition, that is not what people in the anti-gun lobby are calling for. They are callling for bans on certain types of firearms and features because they believe that these are more likely to be used in crimes. You yourself have said previously that you think this type of regulation should be enacted.


Magazine, and Clip size is the one big feature up for debate.

I did say that but I'll let real life events unfold that debate and we'll revisit that discussion at a later time.

I honestly think mental health and background checks need more emphasis and the NRA has opposed this as well and/or contradicted what they support or are against, and based on the resumes and where they put their money they seem to contradict themselves and are only using marketing ploys.

I look for consistency in my beliefs and I hold others to that standard as well.

[DriveAlive]

Magazine, and Clip size is the one big feature up for debate.

I did say that but I'll let real life events unfold that debate and we'll revisit that discussion at a later time.

I honestly think mental health and background checks need more emphasis and the NRA has opposed this as well and/or contradicted what they support or are against, and based on the resumes and where they put their money they seem to contradict themselves and are only using marketing ploys.

I look for consistency in my beliefs and I hold others to that standard as well.
You arent getting an debate from me there. I hate the NRA as much as you and no one in my family is members.

On the issue of magazine size, I am clearly opposed because I see no practical purpose.

[Uniquemind]

You arent getting an debate from me there. I hate the NRA as much as you and no one in my family is members.

On the issue of magazine size, I am clearly opposed because I see no practical purpose.

It's been argued by people who overpower a shooter when they decide to fight that the switching time is the opportunity they need with self defense when they don't have a gun.


Also when the public panics and good guys with guns in scenarios fight back, sometimes the good guys get confused and shoot an innocent bystander or even when the cops arrive on scene, there's such chaos that sometimes the police mistake a good guy with a gun fighting back as the initial shooter reported via their intercom.

[DriveAlive]

It's been argued by people who overpower a shooter when they decide to fight that the switching time is the opportunity they need with self defense when they don't have a gun.


Also when the public panics and good guys with guns in scenarios fight back, sometimes the good guys get confused and shoot an innocent bystander or even when the cops arrive on scene, there's such chaos that sometimes the police mistake a good guy with a gun fighting back as the initial shooter reported via their intercom.

Im sure its happened but I cannot think of an incident in recent memory in which it has. On the other hand, I can think of many incidents in which legal gun owners who are concealed carrying have successfully killed the bad guy.

[Uniquemind]

Im sure its happened but I cannot think of an incident in recent memory in which it has. On the other hand, I can think of many incidents in which legal gun owners who are concealed carrying have successfully killed the bad guy.

You don't have to think hard.

It's been on record that those that tackled the Shooter in Arizona that head shotted Congressmen Gabby Giffords, was taken down by good Samaritans as he reloaded to switch out magazines.

[Straya]

the only argument that needs to be said is to look at amewricas gun violence compared to other countries that have strict laws on guns. if your able to get your hands on a gun to defend yourself then that means that the person harming you has a much easier time of getting there hands on a weapon to harm you with

[DriveAlive]

You don't have to think hard.

It's been on record that those that tackled the Shooter in Arizona that head shotted Congressmen Gabby Giffords, was taken down by good Samaritans as he reloaded to switch out magazines.

II was referring to incidents in which armed civilians accidentally shot other civilians during a mass shooting or were shot by arriving police. Also, if you look at the Aurora shooting, the shooter was overpowered when his high capacity magazine jammed, something that every experienced shooter know will happen with high capacity magazines.

the only argument that needs to be said is to look at amewricas gun violence compared to other countries that have strict laws on guns. if your able to get your hands on a gun to defend yourself then that means that the person harming you has a much easier time of getting there hands on a weapon to harm you with
Unless you look at the levels of rape in say Sweden, or the violence in Mexico and South Africa. All of these countries have stricter gun laws than the U.S.

[Danny_boi 16]

I don't believe that the Second Amendment is clear enough, and I think it should be re-written or re-interpreted. First of all I see not civilian purpose for the the ownership of assault riffles. However, if people want this weapon they should go through a training session and pass a test. For every other firearm, citizen ought to pass a written and range test. As it stands now the text of the amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What I think is important it the word "Militia". I don't think a militia is a group of guys in a Ram truck, just saying. In my State (New Mexico) the militia is defined by the state constitution.

The militia of this state shall consist of all
able-bodied male citizens between the ages
of eighteen and forty-five, except such as
are exempt by laws of the United States or
of this state. The organized militia shall be
called the "national guard of New Mexico,"
of which the governor shall be the commander
in chief.

In Texas all militias are under the supervision of the Governor (Article 4 Section 7). I believe that people have the right to bear arms and defend themselves, but only competent people (who have meet specific qualifications) should be able to legally guns.

[Uniquemind]

The modern day equivalence of "militia" is basically city police, and state troops.

[Danny_boi 16]

The modern day equivalence of "militia" is basically city police, and state troops.
lol I literary gave the modern day equivalence in the post above. Public safety officers are not the equivalence, they operate on a different level. Moreover, they already are required to take exam and extensive training for firearms, and the same ought to be applied to civilians.

[Uniquemind]

lol I literary gave the modern day equivalence in the post above. Public safety officers are not the equivalence, they operate on a different level. Moreover, they already are required to take exam and extensive training for firearms, and the same ought to be applied to civilians.

We must've posted around the same time around seconds differing when we hit "submit" respectively.

[stism]

I got a newsflash for you guys. The instant background check accesss a FEDERAl database, the NCIC. the local cops or state govt have nothing to do with what's done, but they may in some cases (all?) be the ones who actually have to run the check. Every cop does this same "wants and warrants/felony history/probation' check every time he stops a car for a traffic ticket. He knows who and what he is dealing with before he approaches your car.

[WintersuN]

The term 'anti gun' and 'gun control' are negative and biased connotations that paint the movement in a bad light. It's not about controlling your use of guns and limiting your freedom to do so, and it's not as cut and dry as anti gun either. It's about preventing violence, bloodshed and overzealous use of guns, especially by those who clearly shouldn't be using them as they're a threat to the community. Instead the term 'gun violence prevention' is a far more complimentary term.

[DriveAlive]

The term 'anti gun' and 'gun control' are negative and biased connotations that paint the movement in a bad light. It's not about controlling your use of guns and limiting your freedom to do so, and it's not as cut and dry as anti gun either. It's about preventing violence, bloodshed and overzealous use of guns, especially by those who clearly shouldn't be using them as they're a threat to the community. Instead the term 'gun violence prevention' is a far more complimentary term.
If you are such a supporter of this "gun violence prevention" movement, then could you please explain how you would approach doing this without infringing on my right to keep and bear arms? Having the right to buy whatever gun you want and be able to carry a concealed weapon are some of the freedoms that make America so great. We have the freedom to defend ourselves and enjoy firearms, as well as the privilege to hunt. The creator of "The Onion" newspaper once said that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear by making freedom of speech the First Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms the Second Amendment: the essence of freedom in America is having the right to say what you want, and if anyone tries to stop you, you can defend yourself with a gun.

[Uniquemind]

The term 'anti gun' and 'gun control' are negative and biased connotations that paint the movement in a bad light. It's not about controlling your use of guns and limiting your freedom to do so, and it's not as cut and dry as anti gun either. It's about preventing violence, bloodshed and overzealous use of guns, especially by those who clearly shouldn't be using them as they're a threat to the community. Instead the term 'gun violence prevention' is a far more complimentary term.

If you are such a supporter of this "gun violence prevention" movement, then could you please explain how you would approach doing this without infringing on my right to keep and bear arms? Having the right to buy whatever gun you want and be able to carry a concealed weapon are some of the freedoms that make America so great. We have the freedom to defend ourselves and enjoy firearms, as well as the privilege to hunt. The creator of "The Onion" newspaper once said that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear by making freedom of speech the First Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms the Second Amendment: the essence of freedom in America is having the right to say what you want, and if anyone tries to stop you, you can defend yourself with a gun.

Your last line is exemplifies the exact problem.

"Use violence to get your way if your views are being challenged" is the exact mindset that drives "crazies" to act the way they do without any respect for human authority and in some cases physically abuse their spouse or child etc.

(Ex: nasty divorces, child custody seizures, evictions, bar fights, gang fights). All situations where nasty things could've been prevented, victims medical bills been avoided (here's a lowering of economic healthcare costs angle argument), less innocent bystander deaths.

Let's face it, bullet velocity, and gun power are a lot stronger than in The Founding Father's Day, as is bullet accuracy.

The rights of those hit by ricocheting bullets from gun fights are having their rights infringed in an equal way, to what is being proposed here.

Some people can manage gun ownership well, others obviously are at a lower capacity to do this than others that needs to be patched better it's a societal flaw.

The second amendment should consider people equal until one's character begins to show record of the contrary.

[DriveAlive]

Your last line is exemplifies the exact problem.

"Use violence to get your way if your views are being challenged" is the exact mindset that drives "crazies" to act the way they do without any respect for human authority and in some cases physically abuse their spouse or child etc.

(Ex: nasty divorces, child custody seizures, evictions, bar fights, gang fights). All situations where nasty things could've been prevented, victims medical bills been avoided (here's a lowering of economic healthcare costs angle argument), less innocent bystander deaths.

Let's face it, bullet velocity, and gun power are a lot stronger than in The Founding Father's Day, as is bullet accuracy.

The rights of those hit by ricocheting bullets from gun fights are having their rights infringed in an equal way, to what is being proposed here.

Some people can manage gun ownership well, others obviously are at a lower capacity to do this than others that needs to be patched better it's a societal flaw.

The second amendment should consider people equal until one's character begins to show record of the contrary.
First of all, accidentally shooting someone with a ricochete is still a crime so I don't see your point. Almost all notable instances of this happening involve criminals in gangs performin drive-by shootings.

Secondly, you say that people can show that they do not deserve equal rights. This goes against everything America is about. America is about all people being equal and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If you agree with this, then I don't see how you have any problem with the current gun regulations that ban the mentally ill and felons from owning guns.

[Uniquemind]

First of all, accidentally shooting someone with a ricochete is still a crime so I don't see your point. Almost all notable instances of this happening involve criminals in gangs performin drive-by shootings.

Secondly, you say that people can show that they do not deserve equal rights. This goes against everything America is about. America is about all people being equal and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If you agree with this, then I don't see how you have any problem with the current gun regulations that ban the mentally ill and felons from owning guns.

The problem is there's no system tracking that on the basis it would infringe on rights.

So we're at a circular logical argument again.

---


Also gun tech requiring smart gun recognition of it's owner versus a stranger holding the same gun would be something I'd support to.

But the gun lobbyists have resisted that as well.

[DriveAlive]

The problem is there's no system tracking that on the basis it would infringe on rights.

So we're at a circular logical argument again.

---


Also gun tech requiring smart gun recognition of it's owner versus a stranger holding the same gun would be something I'd support to.

But the gun lobbyists have resisted that as well.
Im sorry but there is a "system" tracking a person's criminal and mental history. Im pretty sure its been stated a few times above by a few different people, but all of this is included in a routine background check when buying a firearm.

Second of all, I can see why the "smart gun" technology seems appealing in theory, but I do think there would be a huge problem with it in reality. As we all know, technology can malfunction, glitch, get a virus, run out of battery, etc., so why should these smart guns be any differnt. My iPhone has little glitches every once in a while or runs out battery, both of which inhibit its usability. This is not a problem when all I want to do is check Twitter. This would be a huge problem if I needed to use a gun to defend myself but the tech malfunctioned and I was unable to do so. Nothing is fool-proof and everything will fail at some point. That is why some people still prefer to carry revolvers over semiautomatic pistols. Secondly, how do you contend with the fact that there are already over 300 million legally registered guns in the United States? Would all owners be required to retrofit their guns? Would these guns be seized by the government? Either way, its a violation of rights. To me, the smart gun technology is well-intentioned but wholly impractical when one considers the nature of firearms usage. There are many good articles about the problems with this tech online that you should read.

[DoodleSnap]

Well, from the perspective of a UK citizen, I am against gun-ownership in the US.
We have seen clearly before that murder and mass shooting rates go down when gun ownership goes down. Take Australia for example: the rate of mass shooting plummeted when they introduced more stringent regulation of ownership. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
I seriously doubt that the banning of firearms would ever get through in the US, but I think that more stringent background checks, license requirements, and reason-checks akin to what Australia has implemented would be a great start.
Regardless of your side, I think that we can all agree that background checks are a good idea. The US is brilliant at federalising things on a big scale when it gets to it, so I think that it would be a good first step. There is a reason we don't have mass shootings every year in the UK, and that is because the citizens that want to harm others on a mass scale don't have the means to do so. Simple as.
As for situations where one needs to defend themselves:
It is far more difficult to maim or kill multiple people without a gun, and because of the rareness of intentions of mass death, adding that to the lack of firearms means fewer situations where the defendant needs to use lethal force. The average citizen cannot be graded on intelligence or "suitability" on whether they should have a gun. It is unregulated, and not part of an objective set of numbers. That means unpredictability, which eventually leads to violence. Being able to predict what goes on makes keeping civilians safer a lot easier.
Anyway, this is probably poorly worded and put forth, but it somewhat represents my (biased) views.

[DriveAlive]

Well, from the perspective of a UK citizen, I am against gun-ownership in the US.
We have seen clearly before that murder and mass shooting rates go down when gun ownership goes down. Take Australia for example: the rate of mass shooting plummeted when they introduced more stringent regulation of ownership. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
I seriously doubt that the banning of firearms would ever get through in the US, but I think that more stringent background checks, license requirements, and reason-checks akin to what Australia has implemented would be a great start.
Regardless of your side, I think that we can all agree that background checks are a good idea. The US is brilliant at federalising things on a big scale when it gets to it, so I think that it would be a good first step. There is a reason we don't have mass shootings every year in the UK, and that is because the citizens that want to harm others on a mass scale don't have the means to do so. Simple as.
As for situations where one needs to defend themselves:
It is far more difficult to maim or kill multiple people without a gun, and because of the rareness of intentions of mass death, adding that to the lack of firearms means fewer situations where the defendant needs to use lethal force. The average citizen cannot be graded on intelligence or "suitability" on whether they should have a gun. It is unregulated, and not part of an objective set of numbers. That means unpredictability, which eventually leads to violence. Being able to predict what goes on makes keeping civilians safer a lot easier.
Anyway, this is probably poorly worded and put forth, but it somewhat represents my (biased) views.

I get what you are saying, but I disagree with it. It doesnt help that there was just that instance of someone killing a bunch of people with a car in Australia. The problem with this whole debate in this thread so far is that everyone is all for "more" and "stricter" regulations but don't actually understand that most of what they want are already in effect. Also, if guns are really the problem, then its pretty amazing that there are only a couple shootings with the 300 million or so registered guns and who know how many unregistered in America. As Ive said before, the problem is clearly not the guns, but the state of mental health care. All more federal gun regulation would do would be to give politicians something to pat themselves on the back for and make life more difficult for honest Americans. Instead of wasting gov. time and resources on this, focus on mental health care reform.

[DoodleSnap]

I get what you are saying, but I disagree with it. It doesnt help that there was just that instance of someone killing a bunch of people with a car in Australia. The problem with this whole debate in this thread so far is that everyone is all for "more" and "stricter" regulations but don't actually understand that most of what they want are already in effect. Also, if guns are really the problem, then its pretty amazing that there are only a couple shootings with the 300 million or so registered guns and who know how many unregistered in America. As Ive said before, the problem is clearly not the guns, but the state of mental health care. All more federal gun regulation would do would be to give politicians something to pat themselves on the back for and make life more difficult for honest Americans. Instead of wasting gov. time and resources on this, focus on mental health care reform.
First of all,
I wouldn't really be arguing for these things if they weren't already in place.
I argue that america should have a system like Australia's, which they clearly do not have, shown by the 11k gun deaths per year, which Australia certainly doesn't have. The reason I can say that the desired systems are not in place is because people with severely traumatic mental health issues still manage to get their hands on semi-automatic firearms that have been left out.
Secondly,
"Improving" mental care is an incredibly long process.
What is improvement? Is there a set number of people diagnosed with disorders where we collectively say "oh yeah, this is cool here"?
We know so little about the human brain, so much so that we don't even know what we're doing wrong in caring for mental health victims. Sure, you can pour plenty of money into research labs and think-tanks, but it would still take years, and quite frankly, I don't want to see another year go by with 11 thousand people killed!
Nevermind the fact that many people who are the perpetrators in these killings are, by modern standards, mentally sane!
I personally feel that the argument of "solving" the education or healthcare system overall (regargless of context) is a rather ideological and detached point to put forth. It is very vague, and doesn't detail much.
But in the meantime, what do we have to lose by introducing the systems Australia has? It would be a much quicker way of saving actual lives than talking about "fixing" a system that studies something we know so little about. If they don't have the guns, they don't have the option of killing at all.

[DriveAlive]

First of all,
I wouldn't really be arguing for these things if they weren't already in place.
I argue that america should have a system like Australia's, which they clearly do not have, shown by the 11k gun deaths per year, which Australia certainly doesn't have. The reason I can say that the desired systems are not in place is because people with severely traumatic mental health issues still manage to get their hands on semi-automatic firearms that have been left out.
Secondly,
"Improving" mental care is an incredibly long process.
What is improvement? Is there a set number of people diagnosed with disorders where we collectively say "oh yeah, this is cool here"?
We know so little about the human brain, so much so that we don't even know what we're doing wrong in caring for mental health victims. Sure, you can pour plenty of money into research labs and think-tanks, but it would still take years, and quite frankly, I don't want to see another year go by with 11 thousand people killed!
Nevermind the fact that many people who are the perpetrators in these killings are, by modern standards, mentally sane!
I personally feel that the argument of "solving" the education or healthcare system overall (regargless of context) is a rather ideological and detached point to put forth. It is very vague, and doesn't detail much.
But in the meantime, what do we have to lose by introducing the systems Australia has? It would be a much quicker way of saving actual lives than talking about "fixing" a system that studies something we know so little about. If they don't have the guns, they don't have the option of killing at all.
First, if I am correct and I haven't looked this up so I don't really know but I think that Australia has banned all handguns, semiautomatic guns, and concealed carry. To me, this is unacceptable.
Second, most shooting deaths are either suicides or gang shootings. Mass shootings contribute very small numbers to this. I don't want to sound heartless, but Im not willing to sacrifice my rights because some people die. Drunk driving kills more. Fast food kills more. Smoking kills more. We don't ban alcohol, junk food, or cigarettes. We can't cater to idiots or enact regulations that don't effect criminals.
Third, metnal health care wasn't an issue until Republicans started cutting its funding in the 1980s. Just look at the rise in homelessness after Reagan. Providing mental health facilities and care for those with mental illness is essential.

[kryptonite]

Here's what I think:

If you want to own a gun (being age 18 or above and licensed), you should be allowed. Some guns might be family heirlooms. Others might be needed to legitimately protect the home, especially if you live in a crappy area.

Maybe everyone age 18+ who lives at that address should be required to be licensed. I'm not sure.

Guns should absolutely be locked up in a safe with a trigger lock when not in use...especially when kids are around. One accidental death because a kid thinks it's a toy is one too many.

However, if you use one for murder (not self defense), it should be a very long prison sentence and your guns should be confiscated.

People who live outside the US are certainly allowed to give their opinions, but that would be like me giving my opinion on something within England or Germany or Australia or wherever else.

[satarra3180]

First, if I am correct and I haven't looked this up so I don't really know but I think that Australia has banned all handguns, semiautomatic guns, and concealed carry. To me, this is unacceptable.
Second, most shooting deaths are either suicides or gang shootings. Mass shootings contribute very small numbers to this. I don't want to sound heartless, but Im not willing to sacrifice my rights because some people die. Drunk driving kills more. Fast food kills more. Smoking kills more. We don't ban alcohol, junk food, or cigarettes. We can't cater to idiots or enact regulations that don't effect criminals.
Third, metnal health care wasn't an issue until Republicans started cutting its funding in the 1980s. Just look at the rise in homelessness after Reagan. Providing mental health facilities and care for those with mental illness is essential.


I don't want to sound heartless, but Im not willing to sacrifice my rights because some people die.

With all due respect, this sounds totally heartless to me. We created breathalyzers and checkpoints and made strides to crack down on drunk driving. The foods we give kids in school is changing because of rising health issues, and you basically have to leave the planet to smoke because of what we now know about the effects. None of these solutions are perfect or 100 percent preventative but they help. I just want to feel like, as a non gun owner and someone who has no interest in possessing a gun, that you are taking my desire to feel secure just as serious as yours. I dont feel safer around guns. Where do you live?

[DoodleSnap]

First, if I am correct and I haven't looked this up so I don't really know but I think that Australia has banned all handguns, semiautomatic guns, and concealed carry. To me, this is unacceptable.
Second, most shooting deaths are either suicides or gang shootings. Mass shootings contribute very small numbers to this. I don't want to sound heartless, but Im not willing to sacrifice my rights because some people die. Drunk driving kills more. Fast food kills more. Smoking kills more. We don't ban alcohol, junk food, or cigarettes. We can't cater to idiots or enact regulations that don't effect criminals.
Third, metnal health care wasn't an issue until Republicans started cutting its funding in the 1980s. Just look at the rise in homelessness after Reagan. Providing mental health facilities and care for those with mental illness is essential.
But Australia allows people to own these firearms if they have a legitimate reason. Or at least, I understand that to be the case. If one doesn't need these weapons, then why should they be allowed to statistically endanger the rest of society by giving their fickle human mind the capability to kill on a whim? Nobody is perfect, which is why we shouldn't allow such a large amount of the population to carry these weapons. In the UK, armed police have to be called in, and as a result, death by police brutality or excessive force is peanuts compared to what goes in the states.
But alcohol, cigarettes and junk food cause much different sorts of death. The death they cause is self inflicted, and takes a long, long time. A firearm allows myself, or anyone else, to take multiple lives within the space of a few minutes.
The fact of the matter is that over eleven thousand people die every year, and if you are not going to accept that as a problem that we need to solve, and you are not upholding the aim of protecting human life, then I fail to see why we should have this argument. If you don't care as much for other lives, then fiar enough, support free gun use all you like.

Here's what I think:

If you want to own a gun (being age 18 or above and licensed), you should be allowed. Some guns might be family heirlooms. Others might be needed to legitimately protect the home, especially if you live in a crappy area.

Maybe everyone age 18+ who lives at that address should be required to be licensed. I'm not sure.

Guns should absolutely be locked up in a safe with a trigger lock when not in use...especially when kids are around. One accidental death because a kid thinks it's a toy is one too many.

However, if you use one for murder (not self defense), it should be a very long prison sentence and your guns should be confiscated.

People who live outside the US are certainly allowed to give their opinions, but that would be like me giving my opinion on something within England or Germany or Australia or wherever else.
There is no reason a foreigner can't educate themselves on external matters. My neighbour was extremely surprised that I was so educated on the issues Venezuela faces (she is Venezuelan), because I am a foreigner. I know almost as much about american politics as I do about British politics. Not everyone has a view restricted to their own country, and in many countries it is mandatory to learn about the history of others from a very young age.

[StoppingTom]

I'm very much in support of strong background checks and mental health evaluations, but I also wonder how much gun-related deaths would decline with the banning of firearms. A lot of gun related crime, I'd wager (though I do not have concrete proof right now, admittedly), is caused by people who aren't legal gun owners, and their guns were not legally obtained in the first place (i.e all the gang related gun deaths in Chicago, New York, and California). In the case of deaths by negligent discharge, etc. I think there should be a mandatory, lengthy, and rigorous training and handling process for any potential gun owners.

[Tesserax]

To begin with, the second amendment is quite reasonable, though there are indeed problems. In the end, if guns are "banned", criminals will still be able to obtain guns illegally, making them harder to control. Furthermore, this takes any form of self-defense or protection from such criminals away from the average person. I believe that America has one of the lowest petty crime rates in the world, because of the huge threat of being shot. Additionally, I think a year or two back, in China there was a man who stabbed I think it was 25 people. Now, should these knives be banned? No, because the knife didn't suddenly decide to stab people, the man did.

And this is where the problem lies. From my knowledge as an Australian, American gun laws are simply too lax, allowing people who honestly probably shouldn't have guns to have guns. A full mental evaluation, as well as better control and checks should be put in place. Fully automatic weapons (if not already) should be banned completely, and shotgun owners should only be sold wooden plugs or something like that, and not full pellet rounds.

One argument that I do agree with is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". My evidence? Guns haven't always existed, yet since the dawn of man we have slain each other over territory, resources, even petty disputes. On top of this, weapons are but an extension of the human body, a tool used to make attacking our enemies easier. They don't just mysteriously come alive and start killing people, nor tempt the user into using them. The decision to pick up a gun and start shooting people is the user's own conscious decision, regardless of mental state. It may not be their fault, but it is their actions, and thus they are the ones killing, not the guns.

If you asked people to ban knives and forks because they have been used to kill people, they will call you insane and laugh at you, but the moment you say to ban guns for the exact same reason they will agree. This is double-standard is absolutely stupid, considering that in the end, if I kill you with a knife, fork, or gun, the result is the same: You're dead because I chose to kill you, and whatever weapon I use you will undoubtedly die (if I execute the action properly).

In summary, don't ban guns, it's fucking stupid. Control them. By banning something you relinquish all control over them, but by keeping them legal and monitoring their use properly, you can keep people far safer.

[Uniquemind]

I'd also like to suggest that all government employees who need the use of firearms utilize ownership recognition technology on their weapons.


A lot of stolen guns that end up in the black market and in bad hands comes from stolen law enforcement supplies.

This was the case in the recent Kate Steinle death in San Francisco that is making national news discussions and is feeding Donald Trump's immigration comments in this year's political campaign for president 2016.

[DriveAlive]

To begin with, the second amendment is quite reasonable, though there are indeed problems. In the end, if guns are "banned", criminals will still be able to obtain guns illegally, making them harder to control. Furthermore, this takes any form of self-defense or protection from such criminals away from the average person. I believe that America has one of the lowest petty crime rates in the world, because of the huge threat of being shot. Additionally, I think a year or two back, in China there was a man who stabbed I think it was 25 people. Now, should these knives be banned? No, because the knife didn't suddenly decide to stab people, the man did.

And this is where the problem lies. From my knowledge as an Australian, American gun laws are simply too lax, allowing people who honestly probably shouldn't have guns to have guns. A full mental evaluation, as well as better control and checks should be put in place. Fully automatic weapons (if not already) should be banned completely, and shotgun owners should only be sold wooden plugs or something like that, and not full pellet rounds.

One argument that I do agree with is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". My evidence? Guns haven't always existed, yet since the dawn of man we have slain each other over territory, resources, even petty disputes. On top of this, weapons are but an extension of the human body, a tool used to make attacking our enemies easier. They don't just mysteriously come alive and start killing people, nor tempt the user into using them. The decision to pick up a gun and start shooting people is the user's own conscious decision, regardless of mental state. It may not be their fault, but it is their actions, and thus they are the ones killing, not the guns.

If you asked people to ban knives and forks because they have been used to kill people, they will call you insane and laugh at you, but the moment you say to ban guns for the exact same reason they will agree. This is double-standard is absolutely stupid, considering that in the end, if I kill you with a knife, fork, or gun, the result is the same: You're dead because I chose to kill you, and whatever weapon I use you will undoubtedly die (if I execute the action properly).

In summary, don't ban guns, it's fucking stupid. Control them. By banning something you relinquish all control over them, but by keeping them legal and monitoring their use properly, you can keep people far safer.
What are these wooden plugs for shotguns? Why can't shotgun owners use pelleted ammunition?

[Tesserax]

What are these wooden plugs for shotguns? Why can't shotgun owners use pelleted ammunition?

My main concern is sawed-off shotguns + pelted ammunition. We all know it has a lot of spread, and the problem is that this could be used to injure a lot of people in a large group. Wooden plugs are still actually very powerful though, they are basically large wooden pellets. They don't have the spread of a regular shotgun shell, but I'll be damned if I see something without bulletproofing survive a shot from one.

[StoppingTom]

My main concern is sawed-off shotguns + pelted ammunition. We all know it has a lot of spread, and the problem is that this could be used to injure a lot of people in a large group. Wooden plugs are still actually very powerful though, they are basically large wooden pellets. They don't have the spread of a regular shotgun shell, but I'll be damned if I see something without bulletproofing survive a shot from one.

It also depends on what kind of shot you're using. Birdshot will obviously hurt like hell, but it has a very low chance of killing someone, as opposed to say, buckshot, which tears through a deer as well as a person.

Wooden slugs would burn up from the combustion within the barrel of the gun, and either come out the end of the barrel in flaming fragments, or explode within the barrel itself. Metal slugs are used for bear hunting, so I don't think you'd want to shoot a person with that either.

[DriveAlive]

My main concern is sawed-off shotguns + pelted ammunition. We all know it has a lot of spread, and the problem is that this could be used to injure a lot of people in a large group. Wooden plugs are still actually very powerful though, they are basically large wooden pellets. They don't have the spread of a regular shotgun shell, but I'll be damned if I see something without bulletproofing survive a shot from one.

Um, most shotguns don't get the kind of spread you see in the movies. As others have said, a wooden plug is useless and serves no sporting purpose. Sawed off shotguns require registration with the ATF. Shotguns are an invaluable hunting gun and I don't see why you have a problem with them.

[Tesserax]

Um, most shotguns don't get the kind of spread you see in the movies. As others have said, a wooden plug is useless and serves no sporting purpose. Sawed off shotguns require registration with the ATF. Shotguns are an invaluable hunting gun and I don't see why you have a problem with them.

I'm fine with hunters, but my fear is the possibility of a mentally unstable man suffering a loss, going insane and sawing off his shotgun. You don't need to register to do it, only to do it legally. It's particularly for a few cases, but this brings back the point of... mental verification? A man that recently suffered a divorce, the death of a loved one (perhaps a child), can see erratic behaviour. The main point is, keep these things monitored, if a man has recently suffered mental trauma, restrict the type of bullets and guns he can use.

I'm not anti-guns, just anti-crazy people.

[StoppingTom]

I'm fine with hunters, but my fear is the possibility of a mentally unstable man suffering a loss, going insane and sawing off his shotgun. You don't need to register to do it, only to do it legally. It's particularly for a few cases, but this brings back the point of... mental verification? A man that recently suffered a divorce, the death of a loved one (perhaps a child), can see erratic behaviour. The main point is, keep these things monitored, if a man has recently suffered mental trauma, restrict the type of bullets and guns he can use.

I'm not anti-guns, just anti-crazy people.

So what you're advocating for (and what I agree with) is more of a reform on the Mental Health Care industry.

[Tesserax]

It also depends on what kind of shot you're using. Birdshot will obviously hurt like hell, but it has a very low chance of killing someone, as opposed to say, buckshot, which tears through a deer as well as a person.

Wooden slugs would burn up from the combustion within the barrel of the gun, and either come out the end of the barrel in flaming fragments, or explode within the barrel itself. Metal slugs are used for bear hunting, so I don't think you'd want to shoot a person with that either.

The main point is not even the deaths. But before I go into that, I know for a fact that wooden plugs actually work, considering my father was a hunter when he lived in the US and actually used these for practice. The thing is, I think they do less damage, but can still harm and possibly kill, but they don't have the spread of a regular shell. But anyway, the main point is that shotguns undoubtedly have spread, and the fear of a mentally unstable man injuring many people is enough to warrant close monitoring of gun users. I was just giving an example, but the main point is that people who own guns need to be monitored: their social life, their personal life, all sorts of things. Emotional trauma could trigger erratic, unpredictable behaviour.

As I have said to somebody else, I am not anti-guns, I am anti-crazy people, and pro-crazy-people prevention.

[Tesserax]

So what you're advocating for (and what I agree with) is more of a reform on the Mental Health Care industry.

Sort of, a collaboration if you will.

[StoppingTom]

Sort of, a collaboration if you will.

I can certainly get behind that.

[DriveAlive]

While I have called for mor mental healtlh care reform, I still find it odd that you are targeting shotguns. As far as I remember, I don't think any crazy person in recent history has used a sawed off shotgun in a murder spree.

[Uniquemind]

While I have called for mor mental healtlh care reform, I still find it odd that you are targeting shotguns. As far as I remember, I don't think any crazy person in recent history has used a sawed off shotgun in a murder spree.

You jinxed it....now we play the waiting game.

Bets anyone?

Okay all kidding aside though because this is a serious topic.

What did you think of my suggestion regarding personalized law enforcement and federal agent guns using the personal identifier technology so stolen law enforcement guns don't enter black markets or criminal hands as much.


It's a more precise solution to the broader concept I suggested here before.

[DriveAlive]

You jinxed it....now we play the waiting game.

Bets anyone?

Okay all kidding aside though because this is a serious topic.

What did you think of my suggestion regarding personalized law enforcement and federal agent guns using the personal identifier technology so stolen law enforcement guns don't enter black markets or criminal hands as much.


It's a more precise solution to the broader concept I suggested here before.

While I can see that this would be pretty useful at preventing criminals from shooting cops with their own guns (this happened to my dad's uncle) I still believe the other points I made about the possibility of the identifier system failing far outweighs and advantage. If you are wearing gloves, you hands are dirty or sweaty, or you don't grip it just on, the gun won't work. If the batteries die, there is a glitch, a virus, or an EMP, the gun won't work. When you need a gun, you need it right then and nothing else will do.

[Uniquemind]

While I can see that this would be pretty useful at preventing criminals from shooting cops with their own guns (this happened to my dad's uncle) I still believe the other points I made about the possibility of the identifier system failing far outweighs and advantage. If you are wearing gloves, you hands are dirty or sweaty, or you don't grip it just on, the gun won't work. If the batteries die, there is a glitch, a virus, or an EMP, the gun won't work. When you need a gun, you need it right then and nothing else will do.

Of course those would be problems, but technical innovation will get the links worked out over time and the consequences are the same now with death in any situation involving cops.

Doesn't mean all swat teams need em, just strategically give cops that personal gun tech and if a situation is really bad obviously call for a backup with more heavy artillery that are classic guns without the personal identifier.


If the technology is going to be tested I think law enforcement is a good starting point.

[dxcxdzv]

I still don't understand how a reasonable government can let people freely buy war weapons. That's freaking scary.

[DriveAlive]

I still don't understand how a reasonable government can let people freely buy war weapons. That's freaking scary.

What are "war weapons"? Are you referring to AR15s or something like an RPG?

[dxcxdzv]

What are "war weapons"? Are you referring to AR15s or something like an RPG?
It's true that a lot of things can be qualified as "war weapons" but I was thinking about rifles (like assault rifles or shotguns), semi-automatic or automatic handguns and other things that has nothing to do in the hands of an untrained civil.

[DriveAlive]

It's true that a lot of things can be qualified as "war weapons" but I was thinking about rifles, semi-automatic or automatic handguns and other things that has nothing to do in the hands of a untrained civil.
I don't think there are any automatic handguns available in the U.S. for sale. I also don't see what is wrong with semiautomatic guns. They are great for defense and hunting hogs. Trust me, if someone broke into your house, youd be much happier with a glock than a musket.

[dxcxdzv]

I don't think there are any automatic handguns available in the U.S. for sale. I also don't see what is wrong with semiautomatic guns. They are great for defense and hunting hogs. Trust me, if someone broke into your house, youd be much happier with a glock than a musket.
The point is that an untrained person shouldn't be armed.
Someone who has a hunting or sport shouting license is formed to know how to use a gun. But not everyone has it.

The argument "if someone come into your house" is non sense, I don't know where you're living for saying such things but the difference between a taser (for exemple) and a glock is the dead guy in the middle of your living room. What a wonderful world.
You don't need a shotgun to neutralize someone, I'm not saying that simple handguns should be prohibited but all the deadly stuff actually sold in America yes.

[DriveAlive]

The point is that an untrained person shouldn't be armed.
Someone who has a hunting or sport shouting license is formed to know how to use a gun. But not everyone has it.

The argument "if someone come into your house" is non sense, I don't know where you're living for saying such things but the difference between a taser (for exemple) and a glock is the dead guy in the middle of your living room. What a wonderful world.
You don't need a shotgun to neutralize someone, I'm not saying that simple handguns should be prohibited but all the deadly stuff actually sold in America yes.

Why? First, people where I live who have a concealed carry permit have taken extensive training to be able to carry. Second, a taser takes a lot of training and is not a reliable stopper, especially against someone on drugs. The addage I like for why I would use a gun for self defense is that when you need a gun, you need it right now and nothing else will do. I would also like to know what this "deadly stuff" is and why it should be banned but not "simple handguns".

[Microcosm]

The point is that an untrained person shouldn't be armed.
Someone who has a hunting or sport shouting license is formed to know how to use a gun. But not everyone has it.

The argument "if someone come into your house" is non sense, I don't know where you're living for saying such things but the difference between a taser (for exemple) and a glock is the dead guy in the middle of your living room. What a wonderful world.
You don't need a shotgun to neutralize someone, I'm not saying that simple handguns should be prohibited but all the deadly stuff actually sold in America yes.

I kind of agree with you on the fact that people should be trained and tested before they're given a firearm. However, the typical American logic is that the right to own and use a firearm is some sort of "divine human right." Which seems to be ludicrous because other countries get along just fine without them.

Gun restrictions are very important to America's future, I think. It's simply not necessary for people to own more dangerous guns than they actually need.

However, I think another large part of this is that Americans love to hunt. Lots of us do. With that in mind, we need good guns in order to hunt. Shotguns can be pretty efficient for some scenarios of hunting(as DriveAlive pointed out).

[dxcxdzv]

"Simple handguns" is traditional, I would lie myself if I say that my father didn't have one but I clearly don't see when having a shotgun is useful. This is the "deadly stuff I'm talking about.
And of course, if you can't stop it, 30 bullets in the heart, that's the perfect solution you're right. I don't know, It may be because I'm European but I clearly don't see how americans can have a such vision about guns, those things are made for kill, not only animals for hunt but humans. Something made for kill can't be compatible with peace. I mean peace inside a country.
In France you also can buy shotguns and AK-47 but you need strict authorizations delivered by the government.

Rainbow Dash : Exactly, there's no need to have such powerful weapons. If americans love to hunt so a hunting license should just be needed. At least make people know what they buy, it's not a toy or something you can put in front of someone if he piss you off. It's a gun, it kills.

[DriveAlive]

"Simple handguns" is traditional, I would lie myself if I say that my father didn't have one but I clearly don't see when having a shotgun is useful. This is the "deadly stuff I'm talking about.
And of course, if you can't stop it, 30 bullets in the heart, that's the perfect solution you're right. I don't know, It may be because I'm European but I clearly don't see how americans can have a such vision about guns, those things are made for kill, not only animals for hunt but humans. Something made for kill can't be compatible with peace. I mean peace inside a country.
In France you also can buy shotguns and AK-47 but you need strict authorizations delivered by the government.

Rainbow Dash : Exactly, there's no need to have such powerful weapons. If americans love to hunt so a hunting license should just be needed. At least make people know what they buy, it's not a toy or something you can put in front of someone if he piss you off. It's a gun, it kills.
Thats exactly what we have already, you have to take a hunter safety course and get a license. A shotgun is not the magical death stick like in video games and movies. Shotguns are basically the only way to hunt birds. A shotgun also allows for pest control on farms, and a non-lethal ammo option for home defense. I think people understand pretty well that guns kill (thats why we use them for defense) and I think you are letting a few rotten apples spoil your perception of gun owners. We are a responsible bunch. If you go into a gun shop, no one is treating them like toys. I also don't see what the problem with guns and peace is. Look at Sweden and Norway. Those countries have a huge percentage of gun owners and are some of the happiest countries in the world to live in. No offense, but I think your oppositon to guns comes from misconceptions regarding them.

[dxcxdzv]

I am conscient that a majority of americans having guns are responsible people. The problem comes from the other side. And no I don't think people know that guns kill, it's easy to say it, it's less easy when you see someone being shot.

Scandinavia has a huge proportion of hunters, they don't buy their guns like that.
And so, talking about defense, any human should (or shoulndn', I don't fuckin know) have the right to kill another one, I don't think I even need to argue about that.

I don't have any "misconceptions", I agree that I'm not american and so I will never be able to state perfectly on the american guns question but the "right to have a gun", to "freely buy a gun" come on, don't tell me it's the smartest thing americans made.

Guns aren't compatible with peace, I explained it, killing is not peace, having the possibility to kill so easily is not peace. I will never recognize a place where people can wear guns as a peace land. I feel incredibly safer in a place where I know that only police have one of those things. And please, you know it's absolutely not a question of liberty (just in case you would say that).

PS : Non killing ammo is great, but it's not that that will resolve all the problems with guns.

[DriveAlive]

I am conscient that a majority of americans having guns are responsible people. The problem comes from the other side. And no I don't think people know that guns kill, it's easy to say it, it's less easy when you see someone being shot.

Scandinavia has a huge proportion of hunters, they don't buy their guns like that.
And so, talking about defense, any human should have the right to kill another one, I don't think I even need to argue about that.

I don't have any "misconceptions", I agree that I'm not american and so I will never be able to state perfectly on the american guns question but the "right to have a gun", to "freely buy a gun" come on, don't tell me it's the smartest thing americans made.

Guns aren't compatible with peace, I explained it, killing is not peace, having the possibility to kill so easily is not peace. I will never recognize a place where people can wear guns as a peace land. I feel incredibly safer in a place where I know that only police have one of those things. And please, you know it's absolutely not a question of liberty (just in case you would say that).
I am not afraid of guns (my parents conceal carry) so I don't know why a peaceful country can't also be well-protected (in fact, I think its a prerequisite). My point this whole thread has been that everyone wants to blame guns for mass shootings and violence. To me, this argument is no different than how people used to blame it on rap music and violent video games. Everyone wants a scapegoat and right now guns are just that. The real cause of violence and mass shootings is poverty, lack of education, and mental illness. That is where America needs to focus its energy. In the mean time, I will not let people throw out the baby with the bath water. Why ruin guns for the majority of responsible people.

[dxcxdzv]

The fact that a people has guns doesn't mean it's "well protected". It's not civilians, even with weapons, that will stop a trained army. You're American so I don't expect you to understand why the power to kill never brings peace and why Europeans countries have a so different view of "peace". It's not a reproach but I think Americans are lighter on some subjects than Europeans.
Whatever are the main causes of the tragic events where guns are implicated it has been often demonstrated that absence of guns has a direct impact on criminality rate. Don't put guns as victims of society "like rap music", you don't press a trigger on rap music and see your sister in a blood puddle. This is just an exemple. You can't compare such things.

[DriveAlive]

The fact that a people has guns doesn't mean it's "well protected". It's not civilians, even with weapons, that will stop a trained army. You're American so I don't expect you to understand why the power to kill never brings peace and why Europeans countries have a so different view of "peace". It's not a reproach but I think Americans are lighter on some subjects than Europeans.
Whatever are the main causes of the tragic events where guns are implicated it has been often demonstrated that absence of guns has a direct impact on criminality rate. Don't put guns as victims of society "like rap music", you don't press a trigger on rap music and see your sister in a blood puddle. This is just an exemple. You can't compare such things.
Actually, all mass shootings in recent memory were in gun-free zones. To me, mass shootings are a problem caused by mental illness and your example of accidentally shooting my sister is a problelm of negligence, not the gun. In America, we don't like gettting robbed, assaulted, or raped, so carrying a gun is a good way to remain protected (never said anyting about stopping a trained army).

[dxcxdzv]

Yeah the trained army reminded me the interview of a "typical american citizen" that said : "guns are good, you see if a country like Mexico or Canada invade us we can easily repulse it". Ahah I let you imagine the face of people seeing this on TV.
As I said, whatever the main cause, negligence, mental illness etc, all this kind of problems can be solved by reinforcing the gun politic.
In Europe you don't kill someone even if he commits a crime. The fact that "you don't like" shouldn't give you the right to kill someone. But I already said that.
It's simple I think, everybody can have a gun, easy violence ; nobody have a gun, still violence yeah it's true but less. Really really less. Just look at Japan.
Now I'm not saying that every guns should be take away (like in a Cyanide And Happiness video ahah) but some restrictions will not be too much.

[DriveAlive]

In america, the places with the strictest gun laws just so happen to have the highest homicide rates. I will also point out that most gun violence is not caused by arguments between gun owners like you have implied, but rather by gangs. I have said before that I am for gun control (licensing, background checks, etc.) but you are callling for outright bans on certain firearms and I don't know why. Gun crime is based on whatever gun a criminal can get their hands on, not the type of gun. That is why we shouldnt be banning certain guns and punishing the people who have proven that they can own them. Also, I think that these regulations should be made more lax in rural and wilderness areas (like in farm areas or alaska) where guns are a necessary part of daily life. Unlike most of Europe, America is a geographically diverse place all within one country and with some mean animals. Therefore, gun contorl must be approached differently.

[dxcxdzv]

Speaking about statistics the Brady Center argues that 9 minors are killed every day by guns and 30 000 dead per year. That's a lot dude.
And what's your source about "the places with the strictest gun laws just so happen to have the highest homicide rates".

https://aspoonfulofsuga.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/4ih5o.jpg

This image always make me smile, when you go at an armorer do you really think that all the things sold in it should be legal? Seriously?

Of course America is different than Europe and the problem can't be solved as it is in other countries but... seriously. Also when you read the Second Amendment you see that it's just a survivance of the Independence War, military militia, seriously, in a democracy?

[DriveAlive]

First, while I am not one to argue with the brady center, I bet you that most of those deaths were gang related, which I have addressed above. Also, take a look at chicago murder rates vs. Texas. And yes, I do think all of the guns at the gun shops I go to should be legal. I don't see why they shouldn't be.

The problem with your argument is the same argument that people say about transgenders being able to use a bathroom. Some say that a transgender woman (this means a man expressing themself as a woman) shouldn't be allowed to use the women's bathroom because they might rape somebody or use it for sexual purposes. While this may happen, it really hasn't happened yet or on a noticible scale to warrant the kind of restrictive action that some want. The same thing applies to guns. All of those guns you posted pics of above sure seem dangerous and scary, but the actual number of murders committed with those types of weapons is so small to nonexistent that I don't see the point in banning them.

[dxcxdzv]

I remember a certain guy at a Batman Premiere movie that will not agree with you.
Sorry but the "so small" it's human lives. If you're ok to live in a world when someone can have automatic assault rifles and, technically do everything he wants with it, it's up to you.

Perhaps that a large amount of homicides are caused by gangs (that often don't legally buy their guns) but this still doesn't justify such a proliferation of guns.
You can't support Staline saying that "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." A death, even within all the others stays a death.
And please stop comparing such things as trans-gender and guns, you can't, we're talking about something that kills. Something that a guy can easily have (and legally regarding to the law) and that permits him to eliminate another human being and sometimes -oh god I can't believe I'm going to say that- in complete legality.

You know it's sad, but a lot of Europeans think that Americans deserve the psychiatric asylum for that.

[DriveAlive]

I remember a certain guy at a Batman Premiere movie that will not agree with you.
Sorry but the "so small" it's human lives. If you're ok to live in a world when someone can have automatic assault rifles and, technically do everything he wants with it, it's up to you.

Perhaps that a large amount of homicides are caused by gangs (that often don't legally buy their guns) but this still doesn't justify such a proliferation of guns.
You can't support Staline saying that "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." A death, even within all the others stays a death.
And please stop comparing such things as trans-gender and guns, you can't, we're talking about something that kills. Something that a guy can easily have (and legally regarding to the law) and that permits him to eliminate another human being and sometimes -oh god I can't believe I'm going to say that- in complete legality.

You know it's sad, but a lot of Europeans think that Americans deserve the psychiatric asylum for that.
First, the aurora shooting was not an automatic rifle, it was semiautomatic. I also dont know where you get the idea that people are permitted to kill each other. ITs like saying that drivers are allowed to get in lethal accidents. Yes, some people break the law and people die, but most don't. I hate to sound crass, but with over 300 million guns in America, if guns were the problem, youd think there would be more deaths.

[dxcxdzv]

Automatic or semi-automatic, it doesn't really matter.

If someone come into your house or aggress you, you can kill him right? I think it's what you call "self defense". I'm not against it, but I'm against the fact that you can kill someone.
Most don't but as I said, it could be one death or 1 million, it's still a problem.
300M guns in the USA yes but fortunately not all the Americans are crazy killers, It doesn't mean guns aren't the problem, or at least, part of the problem. Guns are made for kill, for a lot of people this would be enough to prohibit it, despite this fact some Americans say guns are good, whatever their arguments, guns aren't good.

[Just JT]

Im not guna say I read this entire thread, but I've read enough to understand different perspectives on this hot topic in our world

The sad truth, and unfortunate realities in my opinion is that what we have in this thread is the same debate our government has been having for years

I'm an American, and I believe in our constitutional right to bear arms. (.!!!!)

That being said, our country is so very young in comparison to the ret on the world, we haven't even hit puberty yet, and that's a reality, we are volatile in many ways

The people who use guns, to commit atrocities on others innocent victims are are the ones who need regulation.
We have a no fly list, sexual,offender registry, convicted fellon list/drug charged convicts who are not allowed to own guns.
Those are the problems....
On top of that, we need a drivers license to drive a car, building permit to build a house, all kinds of inspections, rejections, penetrations, speculations and constipations to go along with the hemeroids that causes the problems in the first place....

The people who have no business or sense of responsibility, or knowledge of owning and properly handling a gun, and never will...

The entire system, federal, state, healthcare, whatever care, all needs to be overhauled, re evaluated, and be done with.....

Because personally, I grew up with guns, not guna give them up, nope, not guna happen, and nobody's stoping me, and nobody's invading the USA

Probably cause there to many freakin guns, and nobody knows where they all are!!!

And that's a good thing as long as those in possession, are mentally stable enought to handle them properly...