That is the crux of it when you distill it down.
2 Likes
Whatever dude, If we just keep throwing every conceivable argument out there somethingâs gonna stick and then we can keep our guns!
4 Likes
âRight. Saving lives is not as important as the convenient access to recreational drugs. Got it.â
So glad the scourge of marijuana is over and I can let me kids out in the world confident they wonât run into this devils drug. Or since she is under 21, there is no way she will have access to alcohol. If only we could ban the devilâs liquor too! Imagine a world with reduced date rapes, no drunk driving accidents, and reduced domestic abuse and fights!
Unless you do a complete ban of guns, followed by rounding up the existing supply, you arenât going to reduce the supply of illegal guns significantly.
Lovely. You didnât actually engage with any of it. Just:
Good thing I wasnât holding my breath.
6 Likes
Sounds good to me.
3 Likes
Me too.
1 Like
Weâre working on that with the Robot car. I mean technically we can already prevent it by mandatory installation of ignition interlock deviceâs at the manufacturer level, but hey itâs our right to break laws as Americans, because freedom.
1 Like
Except reasonable gun laws have worked in every country they have been tried in. Even in the USA, states with stronger gun laws experienced significantly lower levels of deaths involving firearms than their counterparts with loose gun laws. So yeah, every single time it has worked, even in the USA, even with the factors you claim nullify all efforts. It has never not worked, that is saying something.
Because something doesnât work 100% of the time doesnât mean it doesnât have significant impact. We shouldnât say fck it since kids can get their hands on alcohol we might as well let them buy as much of it as they want as high proof as they want without any restrictions. That would be as negligent as our current gun situation. Seatbelts and airbags donât save lives 100% of the time so fck them. That kind of reasoning is inherently flawed.
If marijuana was lethal at all or people killed other people with marijuana this statement might make a modicum of sense. as it is eveywhere it is legal marijuana is highly regulated, much more so then guns. this argument is getting to be thin soup. the reason we are changing marijuana laws is harm reduction. the reason we want to change gun laws is harm reduction. This is something that all caring human beings should be behind if they arenât blinded by their ideologies.
Again: If we are going to allow people to continue to own guns, the guns need to be registered and have their ownership carefully tracked and carry liability insurance same as cars, and their owners need to have a license and pass a safety test same as cars. Any special class of gun should require a special license same as special classes of vehicles like motorcycles and buses do. Offenders and irresponsible people can have their licenses revoked. THAT IS RESPONSIBLE. Funny how âresponsibleâ gun owners donât actually want to take any responsibility or do the responsible thing. This is perfectly reasonable, you can have guns in a responsible and regulated way. What is the problem with that?
9 Likes
OK- I said I would reply to redsignedâs post that he linked to - so here we go. I copy pasted the last two large posts of his and will reply in order.
First I think I have to post a pic, as it is apparently customary now. I love purple.
Letâs start out with an overview of things. First, I still contend that for the average person, their exposure to guns is nothing based in reality. They have little to no real-world exposure and pretty much the only exposure they have would be when guns are used for crime on the news, or for entertainment in movies, TV, video games, comics, etc, etc. So I am trying to be understanding of that view and attempt to educate that while there are people who live up to the preconceived biases in their minds, just like you shouldnât use stereotypes the media portrays as a basis for reality for other people, you shouldnât do so with gun owners. They run the gamut of liberal to conservative, all races, colors, and creeds. Their reasons for having one range from collecting, to defense, to hunting, to sport, to âjust to haveâ.
Second, I approach all of this from a libertarian point of view. Not a crazy, anarchist, âtaxation is theftâ, Ann Rand loving one, but the average moderate one that millions of Americanâs fall under in the political spectrum, even if they donât identify as such. We hold personal freedoms high. We have a natural distrust of the government and authorities in powers.
I believe much of BB holds this last sentence dear as well, based on the many posts against thing like outlawing encryption, mass surveillance, the TSA, keeping the internet open and free, etc. Basically I think the average person doesnât like to feel like the government is treating them like a criminal.
Third, I want to bring this up and keep this in mind. The US is a huge country. 32000 people dead a year seems like a lot, but when you consider at least 80 million have access to a firearm (perhaps up to 100 million) that means only .04% of gun owners killed someone. If you took out suicides and accidents you are looking at .015% of guns owners committed a homicide. Even being totally honest and counting the number of INJURIES from firearms per year (which includes failed suicides and accidents), at 104K per year that is .13% of gun owners who managed to hurt someone else or themselves. (Note the percentage is even less because one assumes as 1 to 1 ratio, and obviously there are cases where one person hurts multiple people.)
So anything we do is to lock down this tiny, tiny percentage of people misusing guns. While I am sure you disagree with my statement - I still contend that further punishing the 99.87% of people who hurt NO ONE isnât rational or common sense. Just like shit like the TSA is neither rational nor common sense. Nor is it rational to fear the WHOLE population because .13% of that population has hurt themselves or others. Can you imagine the cries of discrimination if you said that about any other population?
Finally as we talk about what other countries do and what works for them, I still contend that gun laws are only part of the picture. They didnât have as much violence as the US BEFORE they enacted new laws in the UK, Australia, Canada, etc. Also, I canât stand it when people in one breath say ârelax no one wants to take your gunsâ, and in the next breath say they want laws like countries that had massive turn in programs.
But the bigger point is: the UK, Canada, Australia is not the US. We have different cultures. We have different sub cultures within. We have racism playing a major role in our social-economic make up, we have people who are more oppressed and feel they have little to lose, we have an archaic attitude towards drugs, and many other differences. We have differences from region to region, state to state. The problems in say South Dakota a much different than in say New Jersey.
[quote=âredesigned, post:179, topic:68685, full:trueâ]
I propose the following:
Hunting Rifles and Shotguns are fine. These are much more powerful than the weapons our constitutional forefathers had in mind, but whatever. They have a legitimate purpose and donât seem to be an issue (see canada and many european countires).[/quote]
Well on one hand I appreciate at least trying to focus on the problem. You should add âassaultâ rifles to that list as well as they are very rarely ever used in crimes. It is true handguns are the main weapons used on gun crimes.
But on the other hand, this also just semantics. There is little to no difference between the bolt action hunting rifle and pump shot gun a hunter or farmer would use, and the bolt action sniper rifle and tactical shot gun the army or SWAT team would use. The famous Texas Tower shooter from the 60s used a Remington 700 in 6mm - a very average deer rifle. So classifying this type or that type as good or bad just doesnât hold up to scrutiny.
[quote=âredesigned, post:179, topic:68685, full:trueâ]
If people like target shooting they can own another type of gun and keep it locked up at a range where they target shoot, no need to have those anywhere else. We can require ranges to install secure storage private lockers.[/quote]
Sooo - treating 80 million people like they are children who have to be supervised by the state/whoever is in charge of the ranges. How about no. If I have my own land I still have to travel how far to shoot? I guess all you would have to do then is have the city ban ranges or not issue permits, and then any city dwellers would have to travel out side of the city to shoot. What if I belong to club B and my friend is at club A? Guess we canât get together. Forget large competition shoots, etc. That is ridiculous as that idea in the UK to make some safe, government filtered internet because the average person canât be trusted.
Also, especially considering how many who post on BB are sensitive to classism and racism, your idea managed will mostly affect the poor and lower middle class and, by association, minorities.
[quote=âredesigned, post:179, topic:68685, full:trueâ]
Historical weapons can be registered and be made non-functional for display purposes. Grandadâs whatever over the mantel is fine so long as it doesnât work.[/quote]
See - now youâre going after the least problematic weapons out there. People arenât generally stealing and using broom-handled Mausers in the streets. People in general are rarely using these guns - and certainly they are almost never being used for crime. Why are we going after them again?
[quote=âredesigned, post:179, topic:68685, full:trueâ]
If people want to own other types of guns they can apply for a license to do so and there can be better regulations on who can get them, resale, ownership, how they are stored, etc. Maybe even a safety book to study and a test, like we require for automobiles because of their lethality, or like we require for people who handle explosives for demolition, or pretty much anything of comparable lethality.[/quote]
Well I am all for better education. Though to be honest, operating firearm is so simple a 5 year old can do it with super vision. There are 4 basic rules, and as long as you follow 1 of those 4 all the time, no one will ever get hurt.
When it comes to licensing I have a couple points:
What are we combating here? Accidents? Because there arenât that man per year. About 800, but some of those are suicides ruled as accident. At any rate, how many of those are from ignorance vs complacency or just not caring to be safe? Will a licensing scheme make anything better actually?
Right now gun ownership could be argued as a right. Thus insisting on a license for OWNERSHIP I donât know if that would be constitutional. A test to exercise your right - like a literacy test for voting? Who is giving out those tests? Who is a keeper of your rights?
You mentioned cars, but you can own a car with out a license. You need a license for driving on a public road (which I can give eye witness accounts does not guarantee competency.) In general though, you donât use guns in public they are in your house and used on your land or at a range. When guns are used in a public setting, nearly every state ALREADY requires licensing of some sort. You need to pass a Hunters Safety Course to buy a hunting license. To conceal carry in most states you have to pass a test. (There are a couple exceptions.) Though again - who is the keeper of your rights? My two friends, one black, one asian, both applied for their CCW and both didnât get a call back to come pick them up and both waited the maximum time required. Now I hope that was just because the office was busy and not because they were being discriminated against.
And finally, no one who has a gun illegally is going to get a license. That wonât stop any one. My dad was rear-ended by a guy with no license, no insurance, and not in the country legally. Dude had to get to work. You think a criminal is like, âNah, bro, I canât hit that store with you, I still ainât got my license yet.â
[quote=âredesigned, post:179, topic:68685, full:trueâ]
This seems pretty reasonable to meâŚmost of us pro better gun regulation people are willing to talk about the issues directly instead of constantly misdirecting and diverting the conversation.[/quote]
Well other than the license thing, you were pretty nebulous with âregulationsâ. So I dunno.
Again - what sensible laws, specifically? The members of the NRA, in general, are not the problem here. They certainly arenât the ones committing crimes. The NRA and their instructor network is the single largest entity for fire arm instructions. From conceal carry permit classes, to new user classes, to womenâs only gun classes, to home defense, to the various shooters sports, to the hunter safety courses, to even police training. Nearly all of those instructors are part of their education network.
[quote=âredesigned, post:179, topic:68685, full:trueâ]
Almost all the countries that have passed highly successful gun reform have not enacted complete bans. Most mass shootings and gun violence donât happen from the type of criminal that has access to the illegal gun market. These sorts of laws have worked in country after country, they have never not worked. They couldnât possibly be more successful.[/quote]
ânot enacted complete bansâ. Yeah thatâs like taking some kids Halloween bag, leaving him those black and orange wrapped peanut-ish tasting things and say âWhatâs wrong, I didnât take ALL your candy. Look at the bright side, you wonât get fat and diabetes now!â
First, those countries never had the amount of violence in the US. In general though, violent crime is down in the US despite not passing new, massive gun laws. Mass shootings have for some reason increased, but it isnât because ACCESS is easier. The AR15 was made in 1959. The bigger, more powerful AR10 was made in 1956. Until 1968 you could have had that weapon mailed to your front door. Until 1998 you could buy one with out a computerized back ground check. And yet with increased restrictions, we seem to have more mass shootings. Now why is this? Availability I guess does play a factor, but at the same time all guns are harder to get than they were 20, 30, 40 + years ago. Why werenât there more mass shootings then? Could there be other factors that are causing mass shootings increase (even though they are still very rare over all.)
Certainly if you did what the UK did and outlaw and have people turn in nearly all hand guns (their shooting teams have to practice out of country), then you would see some reduction in gun deaths, as those are the guns most used in crime.
[quote=âredesigned, post:179, topic:68685, full:trueâ]
Yes I am, but I guess I am not affected with that defect. I think for myself.[/quote]
Yeah - read that book âYou are not so Smartâ and see how many informed decisions you make daily are based on a lot of nothing at all.
[quote=âredesigned, post:179, topic:68685, full:trueâ]
If I tell you that you canât murder someone do you get the urge to kill someone? Probably notâŚbecause rational people arenât sheep. Anyone who can be entrusted to own something so lethal should be capable of a reasonable degree of autonomous rational thought.[/quote]
Yeah - I am sure you are the one person on the planet marketing never works on. Unless you are a robot, you own things that werenât the best or cheapest - you just wanted it because of how you felt about it. But anywayâŚ
[quote=âredesigned, post:179, topic:68685, full:trueâ]
Most of the guns that are the issue either belong to legal owners and/or started out that way. we donât even have any way to track the current owner of any specific gun. gun regulations in the USA are a joke and highly irresponsible. the types of guns us citizens can own without any sort of special permit is frightening. You are correct, the problem isnât illegal guns, the problem is that the entire system needs an overhaul in order to be responsible and accountable. Right now there is very little of either. You need to pass a test and get a license to drive a car, the car has to be registered and insured, because that is RESPONSIBLE. Not so with guns.[/quote]
Again, you keep harping on the responsible gun owners. Responsible gun owners are the overwhelming majority. Even many of the illegal gun owners are responsible enough to not have their kid shoot themselves or others. Responsible gun owners are not the problem. You canât really legislate people to behave or obey the law or be responsible. Seat belt laws helped some because it increased awareness. No one is buckling up to avoid a ticket. They do it because it is prudent.
Any one who is irresponsible with a gun ends up breaking the law in someway already and is opening themselves to lawsuits or charges if they hurt someone or something But like I said, the accidental gun deaths (including the suicides counting as such) are extremely small given he total number of users out there.
I covered the licensing above.
Insurance? The reason you insure cars is because if you screw up you end up causing hundreds to thousands of dollars in damage and possibly hurt or killed someone and have their medical bills as well. And this happens a lot. Like nearly 5.5 million times a year. That 2.58% of drivers per year will be in an accident of some kind. I donât have full figures for gun accidents, but .001% of gun owners will have a fatal gun accident per year. And any of those accidents that donât involve hurting people involves a 9mm hole in a floor or wall that can be patched up. Home owners insurance would probably cover that and most accidents to people happening on your property. And people who actually HURT other people on purpose - the ones that probably shouldnât have guns in the first place. The one who is likely to be poor, isnât going to have insurance. You will be lucky if his car does. (and again, another scheme that would hit the poor and specifically poor minorities the worse, for the ones who do have a gun for defense and live in a bad area.) So insurance is a moot point. Period.
Registration. You know, I could maybe get behind this in theory. I mean, I have my gun models and serial numbers on file with my insurance company (for theft). But the problem I have is every time there has been a registration scheme, it has lead to confiscation and turn in programs. I mean, you would have to be an idiot who never read a history book to think that this wouldnât be used against you some day.
Further more, again, the illegal gun owners WONâT register them. If their girl friend bought the gun for them and registered it under her name and they later get caught with it - then what? Are they going to put her away for letting her felon boy friend use her gun? Could she just plead that he stole it? Hell, scroll up, a guy did just that basically, KILLED A COP, and his GF got a year PROBATION. They caught her. She admitted she lied filling the form out, she admitted she bought it for and gave the gun to her cop killing felon boy friend from out of state she got PROBATION.
And yet you want a huge, bloated bureaucracy to further track shit when they canât even handle what they have right now?
[quote=âredesigned, post:179, topic:68685, full:trueâ]
The very reason why most current gun laws are so poorly enforced is because the NRA lobby has stripped away funding for the ATF year after year. The ATF is the most underfunded government organization.[/quote]
HAHAHA. Yeah. Ok. Find me an under performing government agency that wonât blame its ineptness on lack of budget, and I will buy you a unicorn. (You are familiar with the Fast and Furious debacle, yes?) But at any rate, enforcement of gun laws starts on the local and state level. The ATF goes more after the big fish. Throwing more money at the problem doesnât always fix anything. Surely you have seen this before:
[quote=âredesigned, post:179, topic:68685, full:trueâ]
**The facts are every country that has implemented better gun regulations has seen a significant reduction in deaths involving firearms. [/quote]
Not that the UK had a lot of gun crime to being with, but here is the homicide chart. Handgun ban was 1997 IIRC.
And Australiaâs murder rate looks pretty steady too.
Same with Canada
So there are three examples of various degrees of gun crack downs in the last 20 or so years, and while what little gun crime they had did fall, the over all murder rate, while on a downward trend the same as the US, didnât nose dive.
I think this thread will auto lock soon. See you next time the hornetâs nest is kicked.
1 Like
Well, thanks for the respect, I guess! Back atcha.
Honestly, I think itâs because Iâm not passionate about the subject, I see the people at both ends of the spectrum as having a âspecialâ (i.e. fetishistic) relationship with guns.
Like a great many people in the USA, I am not in the least frightened of guns. I was present for this incident two weeks ago. I was at the far end of the stands giving balloons to little kids when the cries of âgun! gun! run!â went up, so by the time I got to the shooter the altercation had already been broken up by Coach Seeman, Mr. Caulfield, and the father of the boy who was originally attacked. The boyâs father physically seized a 17-year-old who was waving a pistol - does that sound like somebody who was frightened by a tool? Heâd have done exactly the same thing if the boyâd been waving a hammer or a wrench. To a huge number of us, guns are just tools, and they are not specially evil or good and do not require the level of obsessive attention they command - only the same respect that youâd use around a large chainsaw or bandsaw.
In my own case, I have a neighbor with large aggressive dogs that periodically escape on to my land, thereâs been a confirmed mountain lion sighting less than 200 yards from my property, the local police are unlikely to help me (I helped break up their illegal dumping operation a year or so ago, so Iâm sure theyâd love any excuse to come running towards me with guns aâblazin), and thereâs increasing numbers of armed home invasions in my area (due to economic factors). These things all being verifiably true, added to the fact that I have never harmed anyone who didnât harm me first, I donât see why I shouldnât be allowed to carry a powerful handgun for self-defense. I donât carry one, but thatâs my choice. I like having the legal right to defend myself and my family from animals and rogue cops, without having to carry a shotgun around, every time I step out of the door. I like it that my older friends who live alone can carry pistols legally in their homes, (and several of them do - although theyâve never harmed anyone either).
Anyway, I agree with your characterization of gun nuts (as a group, not necessarily as individuals) having a persecution complex similar to that of conservative Xians (same caveat applies). But I donât think people who want to take away pistols from people like me are thinking any more clearly than the gun nuts. Theyâre both extreme viewpoints, and when I see someone criticizing @Mister44âs very measured defense of private gun ownership as being ânuttyâ I tend to think that itâs the pot calling the kettle black.
Again, I do not carry a gun and very rarely use one. I have gone after a pair of dogs with a heavy cudgel recently, I do admit, so Iâm not pretending Iâm not a violent person.
Edit:
PLEASE people do not modify historical artifacts in any way other than to preserve them in period-appropriate ways! If your local jurisdiction does not allow you to have Granddadâs whatever in perfect working condition please find an appropriate museum or historical society that can make it available to researchers and display it in a controlled setting without mutilating it. It does not have to be over the mantel.
I own a horribly ruined Union artillery officerâs sword from the US Slaveholderâs Rebellion, and I am passionate about that kind of destruction of history. Just not about guns specifically ;).
1 Like
My friend is a gun smith in Houston. He has some very interesting clients, including many who come in with chrome or gold plated guns.
One guy came in with a Colt 1911 in .38 Super with a 4 digit serial number. I asked him how hard it was to put things together when youâre crying uncontrollably.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
