Gun Policy

[Karl Marx]

Most of you that want to change gun ownership and availability want to add fines and licenses to them. That goes against the 'right to bear arms'.

 

Requiring someone to have a license in order to own/operate a gun isn't infringing on their right to do so. It's the same as having to have a driver's license.

 

I'd say if the military did turn on you, the civilian population even with firearms wouldn't stand a chance against the US military.

 

Because the entire military, complete with tanks, aircraft, and ships would attack us if ordered to. There is no reason to think that most military personnel would rebel against a government that tried to force them to attack the people they swore to protect. The defections in Syria were just a fluke, and would never happen in the United States.

 

If that's the case, why do some countries have much higher gun murder rates than others?

 

I'll give you a hint. It's not the rate of gun ownership.

 

[Solomon]

You just compared gun crime in the U.S.A. with Honduras, El Salvador, Ivory Coast, and Jamaica.

Then you tried to switch the agenda away from guns and towards violent crime.

If it isn't gun ownership, what is it?

[PiratePaul]

Requiring someone to have a license in order to own/operate a gun isn't infringing on their right to do so. It's the same as having to have a driver's license.

I gives the governing body the right to deny your license. Other than that, I would agree (other than fees).

[Keegoz]

Because the entire military, complete with tanks, aircraft, and ships would attack us if ordered to. There is no reason to think that most military personnel would rebel against a government that tried to force them to attack the people they swore to protect. The defections in Syria were just a fluke, and would never happen in the United States.

 

 

If you bothered reading what I said you would know that I said it was unlikely that they would turn on you. This was then a carry on statement to further prove that even if they hypothetically did that you would still lose.

[Don Juan]

I dislike the idea of people carrying concealed guns. Does that ever put you at unease that others may have a concealed gun hidden away in their jacket or w/e? (for those Americans who live in states which allow this)

Edited July 19, 2014 by Don Juan

[Nord lord]

There should be zero debate about this... The United States Constitution literally says everything. But people like president Obama try to take that, thinking making guns illegal will fix it.

Have you realized that the Colorado movie theater, all the schools, etc. were all gun free zones? Criminals do not follow the law, if a place is a "gun free zone", a criminal will bring a gun in, because he is a criminal, that is what they do. They break the law.

Nothing complicated about it really.

[PiratePaul]

I dislike the idea of people carrying concealed guns. Does that ever put you at unease that others may have a concealed gun hidden away in their jacket or w/e? (for those Americans who live in states which allow this)

It doesn't really bother me. I have a concealed carry permit. I don't understand why it bothers you, so can you please explain?

[Don Juan]

It doesn't really bother me. I have a concealed carry permit. I don't understand why it bothers you, so can you please explain?

I guess I'd rather see and know someone has a gun, that be surprised when or if they draw it from a concealed place. Plus, it would make me think everyone had one, except for those not wearing clothes that could conceal a gun.

[Nord lord]

I guess I'd rather see and know someone has a gun, that be surprised when or if they draw it from a concealed place. Plus, it would make me think everyone had one, except for those not wearing clothes that could conceal a gun.

They have it for protection. It is for the better safety of the people, and so are guns.

[PiratePaul]

I guess I'd rather see and know someone has a gun, that be surprised when or if they draw it from a concealed place. Plus, it would make me think everyone had one, except for those not wearing clothes that could conceal a gun.

I can understand that being a concern, but if someone were to try to rob a store that you were in, would you rather him be the only one with a gun?

[Karl Marx]

You just compared gun crime in the U.S.A. with Honduras, El Salvador, Ivory Coast, and Jamaica.

Then you tried to switch the agenda away from guns and towards violent crime.

If it isn't gun ownership, what is it?

 

This is a valid comparison. The United States has a much higher gun ownership rate than those countries, while also having a much lower murder rate. More guns =/= more murders. The part about the United Kingdom shows that, despite the fact that they've banned handguns, they have more violent crime. More guns =/= more violent crime. Both of these points suggest that limiting/banning guns (except for automatics, no one needs those) will not reduce crime. If it isn't gun ownership, then the cause of gun murders is the same as that of fatal stabbings and beatings. In the case of mass shootings, the underlying issue is always mental health, an issue that the U.S. handles very, very poorly.

 

I gives the governing body the right to deny your license. Other than that, I would agree (other than fees).

 

Does that mean there shouldn't be licenses for cars? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know what you think about licenses and why.

 

I dislike the idea of people carrying concealed guns. Does that ever put you at unease that others may have a concealed gun hidden away in their jacket or w/e? (for those Americans who live in states which allow this)

 

I have a concealed-carry permit. If no one knows that I have a gun, no one gets scared or upset. If I were to open-carry though, children, people afraid of guns, or easily-agitated gun control advocates could get upset. Concealed-carry just seems more polite to me.

 

And no, I've never been anxious that someone might be concealing a gun. In fact, knowing that (besides myself) there may be other people with the capability to prevent a violent crime puts me at ease.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Karl Marx

[PiratePaul]

Does that mean there shouldn't be licenses for cars? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know what you think about licenses and why.

I think that licenses for guns is a bad idea. You don't need a license to own a car, but you do to operate it. If that is what was being said, then I misinterprated it, but that would also be bad. If I had to get a license for every type of gun I own (like with different automobiles) I would need a lot of licenses, but each gun serves a purpose. My type of lifestyle should not be punishable just because someone else broke a law.

(Note: I hunt for almost all of my meat and grow the majority of fruits and vegetables that are eaten in my house)

[Keegoz]

There should be zero debate about this... The United States Constitution literally says everything. But people like president Obama try to take that, thinking making guns illegal will fix it.

Have you realized that the Colorado movie theater, all the schools, etc. were all gun free zones? Criminals do not follow the law, if a place is a "gun free zone", a criminal will bring a gun in, because he is a criminal, that is what they do. They break the law.

Nothing complicated about it really.

The old "The over 200 year old piece of paper tells me that we should have guns therefore we must be right argument". Tell me when you find a old book saying the best way of curing one of your illnesses is too attach leaches to yourself? Because that is the logic you are outlying here.

 

Free gun zones are like free smoking zones a joke. People will smoke in them, people will bring guns into them. I think you know where I am going with this one.

[Solomon]

This is a valid comparison. The United States has a much higher gun ownership rate than those countries, while also having a much lower murder rate. More guns =/= more murders. ...

Sure it's valid to compare U.S. gun murder rates with Honduras, El Salvador, Ivory Coast, and Jamaica, but don't you think it's also disingenuous?

 

It's like saying "we're good because we have more personal freedom than North Korea" or "I'm proud to say Iraq has more suicide bombers than we do". Generally, civilized societies have the humility and wisdom to look at what other civilized societies are do better than them. That's frequently how they became civilized. 

 

2008 was the year someone in Liechtenstein shot someone.

[Karl Marx]

The old "The over 200 year old piece of paper tells me that we should have guns therefore we must be right argument". Tell me when you find a old book saying the best way of curing one of your illnesses is too attach leaches to yourself? Because that is the logic you are outlying here.

 

Free gun zones are like free smoking zones a joke. People will smoke in them, people will bring guns into them. I think you know where I am going with this one.

 

The legitimacy of the Constitution is compromised by its age. Obviously, that means things like free speech, the need of a warrant in order to conduct a search, trial by jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment aren't necessarily good things. The free market is a bad thing (actually true in my opinion, but for different reasons) because The Wealth of Nations was written so long ago. The same goes for all mainstream religious texts.

 

Because that is the logic you are outlying here.

 

As for where you are going with the thing about gun zones... Are you going to propose we get rid of no-gun zones? It's no secret that they fail to prevent crime.

 

Sure it's valid to compare U.S. gun murder rates with Honduras, El Salvador, Ivory Coast, and Jamaica, but don't you think it's also disingenuous?

 

It's like saying "we're good because we have more personal freedom than North Korea" or "I'm proud to say Iraq has more suicide bombers than we do". Generally, civilized societies have the humility and wisdom to look at what other civilized societies are do better than them. That's frequently how they became civilized. 

 

-snip-

 

I wasn't trying to say we're better because we have less violence. The point is that they have more murders and fewer guns, meaning there are factors beyond gun regulation or lack thereof that significantly contribute to violence. This means that more regulation (not to say that I do not support additional regulation, remember my support of licenses) is not guaranteed to decrease violence.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Karl Marx

[WISD0MTREE]

http://business.time.com/2012/12/18/americas-gun-economy-by-the-numbers/

 

Just leaving this here. A ban on guns would change America greatly.

[Ren]

I think that licenses for guns is a bad idea. You don't need a license to own a car, but you do to operate it. If that is what was being said, then I misinterprated it, but that would also be bad. If I had to get a license for every type of gun I own (like with different automobiles) I would need a lot of licenses, but each gun serves a purpose. My type of lifestyle should not be punishable just because someone else broke a law.

(Note: I hunt for almost all of my meat and grow the majority of fruits and vegetables that are eaten in my house)

 

In most states, you can't register a car without insurance and you can't get insurance without a license. In my state, you need 1 type of license for any type of private vehicle, another for a motorcycle, another if you want to transport people for money, another for trucks over a certain size, etc. You can have as many private cars as you can afford with the first license type, but each car must be registered and you face awful fines if the registration lapses.

This system can easily be applied to guns as well. A basic hunting rifle/shotgun license would be an background check, mental health assessment, and safety course. A pistol license would have a more thorough process, and concealed carry would leave no stone unturned. If you want a silly sport gun with no practical purpose (looking at you AR-15), then get the lube out because they're checking everything. The gun owner would be responsible for keeping all registrations and licenses current, and reporting any theft. Like with motor vehicles, some licenses would expire sooner than others, and selling a gun in a private sale would require the new owner to register it at a Dept. of Firearms and pay sales tax. There could even be an inspection system in place that ensures that all weapons are still safe to use and that no illegal modifications have been made. Gun owners ought to be obligated to purchase insurance to protect themselves in the event that something terrible involving their firearm occurs.

 

I have yet to meet a gun owner who wouldn't be willing to jump through a few more hoops to obtain guns if it meant that 1) they get to keep all of their guns, and 2) guns are kept out of the hands of people who don't respect them, and the awful crimes committed by those people are reduced. The "right to bear arms" does not mean that every man, woman, and child should be armed to the teeth. A more stringent system is an absolute must in the US. 

 

Something to consider when looking at firearm crimes in other first world countries is their social safety net. Many of those countries actually take care of their poor, who might otherwise turn to crime, and mental health in those countries is taken seriously. The mental health system in the US is a joke and it comes as no surprise that there are so many nut jobs out there. There will always be criminals, but I think that a lot of violent crimes in the US would be prevented if people had better access to mental health professionals, and the stigma of seeing an MH specialist was gone. Many lack the ability to seek help before their problems manifest into something violent simply because help is too costly. But this would be better discussed in a separate thread 

[Karl Marx]

-snip-

My thoughts exactly.

[Don Juan]

<snip>

Apart from expiry, which I'm unsure of, I'm pretty sure this is roughly how firearm licences work in Australia.

[Keegoz]

Apart from expiry, which I'm unsure of, I'm pretty sure this is roughly how firearm licences work in Australia.

I'm pretty sure it is as well. It is also something that I fully support.

[Nord lord]

The legitimacy of the Constitution is compromised by its age. Obviously, that means things like free speech, the need of a warrant in order to conduct a search, trial by jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment aren't necessarily good things. The free market is a bad thing (actually true in my opinion, but for different reasons) because The Wealth of Nations was written so long ago. The same goes for all mainstream religious texts.

 

Because that is the logic you are outlying here.

 

As for where you are going with the thing about gun zones... Are you going to propose we get rid of no-gun zones? It's no secret that they fail to prevent crime.

 

 

I wasn't trying to say we're better because we have less violence. The point is that they have more murders and fewer guns, meaning there are factors beyond gun regulation or lack thereof that significantly contribute to violence. This means that more regulation (not to say that I do not support additional regulation, remember my support of licenses) is not guaranteed to decrease violence.

I agree with your arguments. May i ask what political party you follow?

[Grillick]

You people keep throwing this image around, and it's growing tiresome. Making me track down  the source to verify the accuracy of your claims just makes me annoyed when I find out that they are total BS.

 

The source for the figure about the UK in that chart is an article from the Telegraph that reports on crime statistics from 2007, comparing them to statistics from 1997 without any consideration of the intervening years. It has since become clear that the spike in violent crime in the UK during that period was only a blip in what is actually a significant decrease in violent crimes (and crime of all sorts) since the late nineties to today. Source

 

Also, please stop mistaking correlation for causation, and the opposite. The mere fact that two things bear a negative correlation does not indicate definitively that one does not cause the other. It may just be that there are other factors that have a much greater impact, effectively cancelling out the causative effect of the first thing. In other words, it may be the case that were it not for the first thing, the second thing would be even less prevalent than it currently is.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Grillick

[Don Juan]

You people keep throwing this image around, and it's growing tiresome. Making me track down  the source to verify the accuracy of your claims just makes me annoyed when I find out that they are total BS.

 

The source for the figure about the UK in that chart  an article from the Telegports on crime statistics from 2007, comparing them to statistics from 1997 without any consideration of the intervening years. It has since become clear that the spike in violent crime in the UK during that period was only a blip in what is actually a significant decrease in violent crimes (and crime of all sorts) since the late nineties to today. Source

 

Also, please stop mistaking correlation for causation, and the opposite. The mere fact that two things bear a negative correlation does not indicate definitively that one does not cause the other. It may just be that there are other factors that have a much greater impact, effectively cancelling out the causative effect of the first thing. In other words, it may be the case that were it not for the first thing, the second thing would be even less prevalent than it currently is.

The image is very much cherry picking. But that's usually what people do to try and legitimise their point.

[Karl Marx]

I agree with your arguments. May i ask what political party you follow?

 

I don't really have one.

 

The communist parties we have today are too anti-religion for me (I don't agree with Marx that religion is alienation) and have stances on abortion that I find objectionable. A lot of them seem obsessed with hating on white people, especially males.

 

If you wanted to associate me with a certain ideology, it would (except for religious principles) be Marxism.

[Don Juan]

I don't really have one.

 

The communist parties we have today are too anti-religion for me (I don't agree with Marx that religion is alienation) and have stances on abortion that I find objectionable. A lot of them seem obsessed with hating on white people, especially males.

 

If you wanted to associate me with a certain ideology, it would (except for religious principles) be Marxism.

Quelle surprise.