Gun Control

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If some people are potentially suicidal there will be mental health records for instance for some people which with full and comprehensive background checks would prevent them from being allowed to purchase a gun. Again will this kind of measure solve the problem no but will it in my opinion save some lives absolutely.

First Up

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Suicide is a red herring and the least relevant category in the gun debate. The main problem is the assault weapons used in mass shootings and in gang warfare.

The number of accidental deaths by handguns is also appalling as is the number if times that what would be a fist fight in most countries turns into a gun battle.

K-9

There's a gun control thread on the main page that could do with more posts, might be better to take up the debate there.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

Yes some will find another way to commit suicide. But not all which means some peoples lives have been saved.


As for your last line. I just shake my head. It is amazing to me how many times I see the words 'gun ban' in these kind of debates when it was never used originally. I never said ban guns. The example I used in this instance was having full and comprehensive background checks. Which if done would I believe save some lives that would have been lost to suicide as well as to other forms of gun violence.

I think the idea that you can catch someone who may become suicidal in their lifetime with a background check to be fanciful at best.

ECO_Mental

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Simple, if a person has ever been hospitalized or is being treated for a bipolar or depression psychotic illness etc =no assault rifle.

It's not that hard really.

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

I think the idea that you can catch someone who may become suicidal in their lifetime with a background check to be fanciful at best.

Not really, someone goes to hospital for attempted suicide; that's entered into their record, comes up on background check, it's not that hard to envision.

Still a bigger issue is kids with guns, and not just kids killing themselves with firearms:

Last year, 44 Americans were shot by Muslim terrorists. By comparison, 52 Americans were shot by toddlers. Which raises the question: Why isn't the government doing more to protect us from toddlers? Think about it. They don't share our values. They barely speak English. They steal our welfare. They have no marketable skills. They're prone to angry outbursts. Worst of all? Most of them aren't even Christians. How long until we say enough is enough and deport these free-loading parasites once and for all??? https://www.facebook.com/JeremyMcLellanComedy/?fref=ts

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

I think the idea that you can catch someone who may become suicidal in their lifetime with a background check to be fanciful at best.

If there are mental health records that would prevent a gun purchase with comprehensive background checks and thus save some lives. Again I fully understand it would not stop and or solve the problem but it is a way where some lives can be saved so for me that is a good thing.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

There's a gun control thread on the main page that could do with more posts, might be better to take up the debate there.

As many posts as I could find relating to gun control moved over. I'd recommend having a read of the thread, good debate going on.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

I think the idea that you can catch someone who may become suicidal in their lifetime with a background check to be fanciful at best.

Wel that is your opinion. For me I am of the belief while comprehensive background checks would not solve or stop the problem it would save some lives and that for me is a good thing.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

Wel that is your opinion. For me I am of the belief while comprehensive background checks would not solve or stop the problem it would save some lives and that for me is a good thing.

The problem with Obama's reforms is that they're not really practical. Anyone who wants to sell one firearm for profit has to register as a federally licenced dealer.

The other problem is that if you give them an inch...

I think it's important to human survival to have at least one place left on earth where citizens can be as well armed as an army. Even if it doesn't seem relevant right now there's no telling where we'll be as a civilisation in 100, 200, 300 years time.

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

Not really, someone goes to hospital for attempted suicide; that's entered into their record, comes up on background check, it's not that hard to envision.

Still a bigger issue is kids with guns, and not just kids killing themselves with firearms:

The overwhelming majority of mentally ill people are not a danger to themselves or anyone else. I think a doctor should be able to specifically recommend a person not have guns, but to deprive someone of their right to a fire arm based on the fact that they can be labelled or categorised as mentally ill is morally wrong.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's not. Does this make background checks useless? No.


Do you have an objection to background checks!

Brian?

walshyn93 wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of mentally ill people are not a danger to themselves or anyone else. I think a doctor should be able to specifically recommend a person not have guns, but to deprive someone of their right to a fire arm based on the fact that they can be labelled or categorised as mentally ill is morally wrong.

Background checks: good or bad? Worthwhile or pointless?

walshyn93

Brian? wrote: »

It's not. Does this make background checks useless? No.


Do you have an objection to background checks!

Using background checks as a means to reducing suicide is almost an admission of defeat. I don't hear gun control advocates in the media making this point and it's for good reason.

There are arguments in favour of gun control and background checks. Suicide is not one of them.

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

The problem with Obama's reforms is that they're not really practical. Anyone who wants to sell one firearm for profit has to register as a federally licenced dealer.

The other problem is that if you give them an inch...

I think it's important to human survival to have at least one place left on earth where citizens can be as well armed as an army. Even if it doesn't seem relevant right now there's no telling where we'll be as a civilisation in 100, 200, 300 years time.

exactly, why give sellers an inch on licensing loopholes?

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

exactly, why give sellers an inch on licensing loopholes?

Because people are less afraid of unlicenced sellers than they are of the government taking their guns. And well they should be. America is the last truly free country because of guns.

walshyn93

Brian? wrote: »

Background checks: good or bad? Worthwhile or pointless?

Pretty pointless when you look at the type of guns used in the commission of crime and you realise that most looney tunes mass shooters would have passed a background check and most career criminals don't buy legally.

Brian?

walshyn93 wrote: »

Because people are less afraid of unlicenced sellers than they are of the government taking their guns. And well they should be. America is the last truly free country because of guns.

Truly free in what manner?

No one is talking about banning guns. I'll say this for the umpteenth time. No one is talking about banning guns.

K-9

The odd thing for me is a fair few of the same people opposed to more background checks on guns would support extra background checks on immigrants. Seems to be cognitive dissonance to me.

Both are imperfect and people will find ways around them but they are a no, no in one area and a great idea in another.

walshyn93

Brian? wrote: »

Truly free in what manner?

No one is talking about banning guns. I'll say this for the umpteenth time. No one is talking about banning guns.

In the sense that they can own guns and defend themselves. In countries like the UK you're expected to flee from an intruder in your home.

Yes they are. So many people are talking about banning guns. That's just an outright lie. There are many many politicians like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and I believe Barack Obama who would ban guns if they could.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

The odd thing for me is a fair few of the same people opposed to more background checks on guns would support extra background checks on immigrants. Seems to be cognitive dissonance to me.

Both are imperfect and people will find ways around them but they are a no, no in one area and a great idea in another.

There's no cognitive dissonance. Immigration is not a right. The difference is that if something turns up on a background check for an immigrant they have to leave the country. If something turns up on a background check for a legal resident they go on craigslist or contact one of their former prison buddies and get a gun that way.

Overheal

You're making up scenarios now - they won't pass the background check but the ex-felon friend will? :rolleyes:

92% of Americans - 87% of Republicans - support improving or expanding background checks.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-agree-with-obama-that-more-gun-buyers-should-get-background-checks/

So many people are talking about banning guns.

Who is talking about it, besides the NRA and it's lobbyists and bought politicians that bring it up as a strawman argument?

The Executive Branch can't unilaterally destroy the 2nd amendment, that's how the constitution is designed. Republicans have a majority in both the house and senate. When are we supposed to have our guns taken away? Are people really that delusional?

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

You're making up scenarios now - they won't pass the background check but the ex-felon friend will? :rolleyes:Who is talking about it, besides the NRA and it's lobbyists and bought politicians that bring it up as a strawman argument?

The Executive Branch can't unilaterally destroy the 2nd amendment, that's how the constitution is designed. Republicans have a majority in both the house and senate. When are we supposed to have our guns taken away? Are people really that delusional?

The people who say "no one is trying to take away your guns" are the exact people who want to take them away.

No, ex-felons have contacts for illegal guns. Alternatively they get a straw-purchaser.

Maybe not in this administration, maybe not the next even. But bit by bit they'll chip away and the NRA are dead right not to give an inch. They already heavily restricted automatics. Next they'll find some spurious justification for black rifles or magazines. The sooner they achieve the next victory the sooner they'll move on to the next battle. Even if it seems benign now it's worth it to slow down the encroachment on gun rights.

And the only thing protecting the 2nd amendment in theory is the Supreme Court, but we've already seen what a heavily stacked Supreme Court can do in terms of judicial overreach. All it takes is for Sotomayor and co. to decide that the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets or some such nonsense. The slippery slope is real.

In fact another 8 years of Democrats in the White House and there will probably be a Supreme Court that is prepared to change the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Brian?

walshyn93 wrote: »

In the sense that they can own guns and defend themselves. In countries like the UK you're expected to flee from an intruder in your home.

No, you are free to defend yourself in the UK with legally owned fire arms. There are plenty of legally held fire arms in the UK. There simply isn't the near unrestricted gun ownership there is in the states.

Yes they are. So many people are talking about banning guns. That's just an outright lie. There are many many politicians like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and I believe Barack Obama who would ban guns if they could.

Who's talking about banning guns? None of the 3 names above are. Whether they privately hold that belief or not is completely unknown.

walshyn93

Brian? wrote: »

No, you are free to defend yourself in the UK with legally owned fire arms. There are plenty of legally held fire arms in the UK. There simply isn't the near unrestricted gun ownership there is in the states.



Who's talking about banning guns? None of the 3 names above are. Whether they privately hold that belief or not is completely unknown.

Politicians lie. Just because they don't talk about it doesn't mean they don't want to do it. It would give the game away and they'd get nothing done so obviously they're not going to go overt right now. But 3 more Supreme Court appointments from the progressive wing of the Dems and there's no telling how far they'll go.

In 2008 the Obama administration was against gay marriage. Their SC appointees thought differently. It's possible to ascertain someone's true intentions from what they do say, in fact its a prerequisite to having any understanding of politics to be able to read between the lines.

People who believe in the 2nd amendment and its original purpose i.e. a defence against tyranny, don't question someone's need to own a 30 round magazine or AR15 or suggest a shotgun instead because the answer is obvious.

Republicans now are saying that they're against federal funding for abortion. Do you not think it's reasonable to just assume that they're really just against abortion altogether and would ban it if they could? I think most people assume that and its not controversial to do so.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

People who believe in the 2nd amendment and its original purpose i.e. a defence against tyranny, don't question someone's need to own a 30 round magazine or AR15 or suggest a shotgun instead because the answer is obvious.

Does the second amendment guarantee you the right to own surface-to-air missiles? For that matter, thermonuclear weapons?

If not, why not?

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

Does the second amendment guarantee you the right to own surface-to-air missiles? For that matter, thermonuclear weapons?

If not, why not?

Things like that are considered under law to be "destructive devices" as opposed to "arms" for the purposes of the constitution. This includes certain rifles referred to (from the top of my head) as anti-material rifles. They're for disabling engine blocks of vehicles in a convoy.

Brian?

walshyn93 wrote: »

Politicians lie. Just because they don't talk about it doesn't mean they don't want to do it. It would give the game away and they'd get nothing done so obviously they're not going to go overt right now. But 3 more Supreme Court appointments from the progressive wing of the Dems and there's no telling how far they'll go.

In 2008 the Obama administration was against gay marriage. Their SC appointees thought differently. It's possible to ascertain someone's true intentions from what they do say, in fact its a prerequisite to having any understanding of politics to be able to read between the lines.

People who believe in the 2nd amendment and its original purpose i.e. a defence against tyranny, don't question someone's need to own a 30 round magazine or AR15 or suggest a shotgun instead because the answer is obvious.

Republicans now are saying that they're against federal funding for abortion. Do you not think it's reasonable to just assume that they're really just against abortion altogether and would ban it if they could? I think most people assume that and its not controversial to do so.

So as I said: No one is talking about banning guns. Nor is it the policy of any Political party or grouping as far as I know.

Now, they may well hold the belief that all guns should be banned. But they know this is politically unworkable, so they are not campaigning for it. Background checks are not the thin end of a wedge, the 2nd amendment is safe as houses.

It is my firm belief that no one you have listed wants to ban all guns, I actually don't know anyone who does. They may want to restrict gun ownership in a way that you feel is contrary to the 2nd amendment; banning hand guns for example. But I'll say again, no one is talking about banning all guns in the USA. Or any other country for that matter.

You interpretation of the 2nd amendment is fairly liberal. The original intent as far as I can tell was to have well armed militias in lieu of a large standing army in case of a British re invasion through Canada or war with Spain to the south. Why else mention well armed militias?

walshyn93

Brian? wrote: »

So as I said: No one is talking about banning guns. Nor is it the policy of any Political party or grouping as far as I know.

Now, they may well hold the belief that all guns should be banned. But they know this is politically unworkable, so they are not campaigning for it. Background checks are not the thin end of a wedge, the 2nd amendment is safe as houses.

It is my firm belief that no one you have listed wants to ban all guns, I actually don't know anyone who does. They may want to restrict gun ownership in a way that you feel is contrary to the 2nd amendment; banning hand guns for example. But I'll say again, no one is talking about banning all guns in the USA. Or any other country for that matter.

You interpretation of the 2nd amendment is fairly liberal. The original intent as far as I can tell was to have well armed militias in lieu of a large standing army in case of a British re invasion through Canada or war with Spain to the south. Why else mention well armed militias?

Well, maybe you're right. Maybe they just want to ban hand-guns and rifles and leave you with rimfire shotguns. Although with Pelosi I wouldn't be so sure. They do want to ban certain magazines. They want to limit you to 7 rounds, which seriously undermines your ability even to defend your home not to mention fight the government, as police officers typically use over 6 rounds to bring down a perp.

There are two parts to the second amendment. One is about a well trained and drilled militia. The other is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The two are related but not inseparable. The right to own and carry a gun was taken as a given by the founders.

Again the Supreme Court could change their mind and if Hillary is elected likely will, but this was the original intent and most constitutional scholars agree.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

Things like that are considered under law to be "destructive devices" as opposed to "arms" for the purposes of the constitution. This includes certain rifles referred to (from the top of my head) as anti-material rifles. They're for disabling engine blocks of vehicles in a convoy.

I see. So the purpose of the second amendment is to defend against tyranny, but such defence can only be carried out with weapons that are designed to kill people, not with weapons designed to damage property.

Can you explain how you'll defend yourself from the tyranny of an air force with a 30-round magazine?

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Because people are less afraid of unlicenced sellers than they are of the government taking their guns. And well they should be. America is the last truly free country because of guns.

America may be many things but truly free is not one of them thanks to the orwellian surveilence state they have in place and the militarized police forces which are way more likely to kill a person then a terrorist is.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

I see. So the purpose of the second amendment is to defend against tyranny, but such defence can only be carried out with weapons that are designed to kill people, not with weapons designed to damage property.

Can you explain how you'll defend yourself from the tyranny of an air force with a 30-round magazine?

You should ask the Taliban that question.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

America may be many things but truly free is not one of them thanks to the orwellian surveilence state they have in place and the militarized police forces which are way more likely to kill a person then a terrorist is.

All the more reason to own guns.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Pretty pointless when you look at the type of guns used in the commission of crime and you realise that most looney tunes mass shooters would have passed a background check and most career criminals don't buy legally.

I don't think anybody is suggesting comprehensive background checks are some kind of panacea for the gun violence problem the Americans have. They can however save some lives and that is a good thing.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

In the sense that they can own guns and defend themselves. In countries like the UK you're expected to flee from an intruder in your home.

Yes they are. So many people are talking about banning guns. That's just an outright lie. There are many many politicians like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and I believe Barack Obama who would ban guns if they could.

You believe ahh I see but can you actually point out any legislation brought forward by above said politicans that would ban guns?

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Politicians lie. Just because they don't talk about it doesn't mean they don't want to do it. It would give the game away and they'd get nothing done so obviously they're not going to go overt right now. But 3 more Supreme Court appointments from the progressive wing of the Dems and there's no telling how far they'll go.

In 2008 the Obama administration was against gay marriage. Their SC appointees thought differently. It's possible to ascertain someone's true intentions from what they do say, in fact its a prerequisite to having any understanding of politics to be able to read between the lines.

People who believe in the 2nd amendment and its original purpose i.e. a defence against tyranny, don't question someone's need to own a 30 round magazine or AR15 or suggest a shotgun instead because the answer is obvious.

Republicans now are saying that they're against federal funding for abortion. Do you not think it's reasonable to just assume that they're really just against abortion altogether and would ban it if they could? I think most people assume that and its not controversial to do so.

Ahhh we see again the defend against tyranny argument brought up again. But who gets to decide when the government is tyrannical and how much tyranny before its ok for citizens to start shooting and killing because they don't like decisions made by the government. What exactly constitutes tyranny that would make it right to start shooting and killing and who gets to decide that?




To say the very idea of shooting and killing because some groups claim the government is tyrannical is a dangerous precedent is beyond an understatement.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

All the more reason to own guns.

so your at least acknowledging that the previous statemnet you made:


'America is the last truly free country because of guns.'


is indeed factually false.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

You should ask the Taliban that question.

I asked you.

PopePalpatine

oscarBravo wrote: »

I asked you.

To be fair, he sort of has a point. With resources that are orders of magnitude beneath what the US armed forces have, the Taliban (and likewise in the case of Da'esh, and also like the Viet Cong) have managed to survive what has been thrown at them. I wouldn't be so certain that an armed uprising in the USA could be quashed in a matter of days or weeks.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

You believe ahh I see but can you actually point out any legislation brought forward by above said politicans that would ban guns?

There was this. This would have banned certain guns but not others. There was no rationale behind it but it was strategic. You see the plan is you ban a bunch of guns with a certain set of features. And then down the line you ban other guns with the same features and when people protest you say "but we've already banned these ones and you're okay with that so you must be okay with this, right?". That's the incremental erosion of rights. The slippery slope if you will, and its very real and they will use it to great effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noy5f-y0uhY

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

so your at least acknowledging that the previous statemnet you made:


'America is the last truly free country because of guns.'


is indeed factually false.

No it is indeed the only truly free country because at any moment our governments in Europe could turn tyrannical and put us in camps and there's nothing we could do about it. If that were to happen in America the people would have the means to resist.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

I asked you.

I don't have to be an expert on guerilla warfare for the 2nd amendment to be as valid today as it was then.

ISIS were just a group of men with guns and vehicles until they banded together and took over centres of economic and military power. Not to mention the fact that a large number of US soldiers would likely defect to the rebels in a revolution situation. But without guns those rebels would never get a chance to be rebels, those rebels would become prisoners.

And by the way, fighter jets are only useful in the air. What if rebels were to storm an army base? Perhaps with help from the inside?

The fact is, a tyrannical US government would not last long fighting against its own people in terms of public opinion and practicality, but without those people being armed there wouldn't even be a fight.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

Ahhh we see again the defend against tyranny argument brought up again. But who gets to decide when the government is tyrannical and how much tyranny before its ok for citizens to start shooting and killing because they don't like decisions made by the government. What exactly constitutes tyranny that would make it right to start shooting and killing and who gets to decide that?




To say the very idea of shooting and killing because some groups claim the government is tyrannical is a dangerous precedent is beyond an understatement.

There is precedent for this nonetheless. There are 4 criteria under which a country can be said to have lost its sovereignty or a government can lose its legitimacy. One of those is use of chemical or biological weapons. Another is genocide.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

No it is indeed the only truly free country because at any moment our governments in Europe could turn tyrannical and put us in camps and there's nothing we could do about it. If that were to happen in America the people would have the means to resist.

I return to my previous point that America may be many things but a free country it most certainly is not given its Orwellian surveilence state and its militarized police who are more likley to kill a person than an actual terrorst.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

There is precedent for this nonetheless. There are 4 criteria under which a country can be said to have lost its sovereignty or a government can lose its legitimacy. One of those is use of chemical or biological weapons. Another is genocide.

That is 2!


You also don't address the issue of who gets to decide when its ok for citizens to start shooting and killing because they don't like decisions that the government makes? Who gets to decide what is a tyrrant and when a government does become tyrannical enough so it is ok for its citizens to start shooting and killing?

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

I return to my previous point that America may be many things but a free country it most certainly is not given its Orwellian surveilence state and its militarized police who are more likley to kill a person than an actual terrorst.

European countries have Orwellian surveillance states as well. Many of them have militarised police. But the lack of a means to defend oneself makes one infinitely less free. You might be more free in your day to day life in Europe. But in the long run not so much.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

That is 2!


You also don't address the issue of who gets to decide when its ok for citizens to start shooting and killing because they don't like decisions that the government makes? Who gets to decide what is a tyrrant and when a government does become tyrannical enough so it is ok for its citizens to start shooting and killing?

Yeah, the other two aren't really relevant to citizens within the country.

Whomever. Once people decide to take up arms it's not a case of right vs wrong it's a case of winner vs loser. What gave the "moderate rebels" the right to rebel against Assad? I think most would agree its when the government starts breaking its own laws, committing genocide. There is already precedent that a person can use lethal force against a cop during a no knock raid. A man shot a member of a swat team dead during a no knock raid on the wrong address and he was acquitted. So there is precedent for armed citizens defending themselves from illegal government actions.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

European countries have Orwellian surveillance states as well. Many of them have militarised police. But the lack of a means to defend oneself makes one infinitely less free. You might be more free in your day to day life in Europe. But in the long run not so much.

Nice attempt to change the subject. I have not been and am not talking about Europe.


Your the one who tried to claim America was a free country because of guns. I made the point that America may be many things but a free country is not one of them due to the Orwellian surveilence state and the militarized police forces that are more likely to kill you then a terrorist is. The point stands.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

There was this. This would have banned certain guns but not others. There was no rationale behind it but it was strategic. You see the plan is you ban a bunch of guns with a certain set of features. And then down the line you ban other guns with the same features and when people protest you say "but we've already banned these ones and you're okay with that so you must be okay with this, right?". That's the incremental erosion of rights. The slippery slope if you will, and its very real and they will use it to great effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noy5f-y0uhY

So again as I said there has been no legistlation brought forward to ban guns.