Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Gun Control in the US
Comments
-
That's your burden of proof. I would argue that guns make it relatively easy and painless for someone to end their life, versus hanging, jumping off buildings, self mutilation, etc.
How is it my burden of proof? You are making the connection between the number of increased suicides and gun availability. Where is the evidence to prove that?0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »I would ask why there is such high levels of suicides and spree killings in the US. What in our society is leading people to commit these acts. Focus on the why,not on the tools used.
Do both. a Gun Violence Restraining Order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The US is 2nd in the world in rate of firearm induced suicides, and #1 by a significant stretch in guns per capita.0 -
Do both. a Gun Violence Restraining Order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The US is 2nd in the world in rate of firearm induced suicides, and #1 by a significant stretch in guns per capita.
I have no issue with that in principle, as long as it is fairly administered and not used as a stealth means by which to deny people their rights. Mental health issues have been used as a pretext to deny veterans their rights, for example.
People, quite rightly imo, lambast Trump for his stance on most issues. He's not wrong, in principle at least, that the root cause of these shootings is related to mental health. There's a shocking lack of resources in the US available for help people who are suffering from mental health problems, and it is a direct contributor to this situation.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »Mental health issues have been used as a pretext to deny veterans their rights, for example.
People, quite rightly imo, lambast Trump for his stance on most issues. He's not wrong, in principle at least, that the root cause of these shootings is related to mental health. There's a shocking lack of resources in the US available for help people who are suffering from mental health problems, and it is a direct contributor to this situation.
Leaving aside for the moment the apparent contradiction between these paragraphs, and concentrating on the second: the problem with the "it's not the guns, it's the mental health problems" argument is that, for it to hold water, it would have to be the case that the USA has dramatically higher rates of mental illness than the rest of the world, given that it has dramatically higher rates of gun violence.
I'm open to correction, but I haven't seen any evidence that the USA has dramatically higher rates of mental illness than the rest of the world.
Don't get me wrong: the USA is so appallingly bad at healthcare in general that it would come as no surprise that its approach to mental health leaves a lot to be desired, but it seems just a little self-serving for a self-confessed advocate of gun rights to argue that the USA doesn't have a gun problem (which it clearly does), but a mental health problem.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »You clearly believe that guns are inherently a bad thing. I disagree. I certainly think that there are steps that could be taken to improve the current situation and help to decrease deaths, but I don't think that banning certain guns types is justified.
Can you show me where I called all guns inherently bad, called for a total ban?
This is the usual rubbish. Try to ask any questions and you are shouted down with "you hate the 2nd amendment", "people die in other ways too".
I haven't called for a ban, only on certain types, and I even asked why those types are even needed. Apart from "I want them" there doesn't seem to be any reason for them. I understand they can do a job quicker/better, but you can say that about anything. Do you need the job done quicker? and is that a price worth paying for having so many people with so many guns?
There is no link between the ownership of high power guns and lack of crime, so why have them at all. To use that as a basis you would have to show that the holders (and publicly known about) owners of high power guns suffer less crime than others. Maybe they do, I have never seen it proven though.
So simply treat like a driving licence. You must start off with very low power weapons, single shot, low caliber.
Only after a number of years, and passing certain exams do you get to move up the scale. That might include knowledge of safety etc.
Getting access to semi-auto weapons would require this plus an additional weekend training course, personal liability insurance and two key safe, one for you one for another signatory.0 -
Advertisement
-
AbusesToilets wrote: »I would ask why you feel the need to pose questions that folks have already debated, in this thread, multiple times.
Gun ownership is a right in the US. The term "assault weapon" is a meaningless political creation, it was a semi-auto rifle. The type of rifle is widely used, for hunting, for target shooting, and yes, for home defense.
As tragic as events like this latest shooting are, they account for a tiny fraction of firearms related deaths. The majority of said deaths being roughly 60% suicides, 15% accidents, and the rest murders.
Yes so certain quarters of the us population keep saying. Gun ownership doesn't mean you are allowed to get your gun anytime someone pisses you off which seems to be the what happened here. Mental health is the usual point rolled out by people like you who can't get past the fact that Americans have an unhealthy fascination with guns. I suppose you think guns don't kill people as well ?
yeah and this gob****e in Florida used it moving human targets. Home Defense ? He went into a school for Christ sake.
Do you think there should increased back round checks and a database to stop this kind of thing ? Or do you believe there should be less regulations and everyone fend for themselves ? Also what is your take on sandy hook ? If only those six year olds had guns ?0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »Your starting point is that these tools are bad and should be banned. you haven't offered any particular reasons for why this should be so. I can go on a mass killing spree with a bolt action just as easily with a semi auto. Or a knife for that matter.
You clearly have little or no experience with any firearms, which is fair enough, however you put forth that such firearms are of limited to now value for those purposes, despite your lack of knowledge.
I care about reducing firearms deaths, period. You seem interested in reducing guns. That's a fundamental difference.
A poodle can kill a man but a Rottweiller is on the restricted breeds list because it can do so much quicker and effectively. It's about capability. i mean, you can go on a shooting spree with a revolver if you want but a semi auto would make you more effective and efficient.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Leaving aside for the moment the apparent contradiction between these paragraphs, and concentrating on the second: the problem with the "it's not the guns, it's the mental health problems" argument is that, for it to hold water, it would have to be the case that the USA has dramatically higher rates of mental illness than the rest of the world, given that it has dramatically higher rates of gun violence.
I'm open to correction, but I haven't seen any evidence that the USA has dramatically higher rates of mental illness than the rest of the world.
Don't get me wrong: the USA is so appallingly bad at healthcare in general that it would come as no surprise that its approach to mental health leaves a lot to be desired, but it seems just a little self-serving for a self-confessed advocate of gun rights to argue that the USA doesn't have a gun problem (which it clearly does), but a mental health problem.
Without having figures in front of me as I'm on my mobile at the present, I would pose the question if there is not a substantive difference in treatment options available between the United States and other countries, relative to the respective numbers per capita. Again, I'm generally loathe to throw statements out there without figures to back them up and I'll certainly look into it at a later date, but I would not be surprised that would be a definite difference between a country like the United States and similar Western countries such as in Europe.0 -
Can you show me where I called all guns inherently bad, called for a total ban?
This is the usual rubbish. Try to ask any questions and you are shouted down with "you hate the 2nd amendment", "people die in other ways too".
I haven't called for a ban, only on certain types, and I even asked why those types are even needed. Apart from "I want them" there doesn't seem to be any reason for them. I understand they can do a job quicker/better, but you can say that about anything. Do you need the job done quicker? and is that a price worth paying for having so many people with so many guns?
There is no link between the ownership of high power guns and lack of crime, so why have them at all. To use that as a basis you would have to show that the holders (and publicly known about) owners of high power guns suffer less crime than others. Maybe they do, I have never seen it proven though.
So simply treat like a driving licence. You must start off with very low power weapons, single shot, low caliber.
Only after a number of years, and passing certain exams do you get to move up the scale. That might include knowledge of safety etc.
Getting access to semi-auto weapons would require this plus an additional weekend training course, personal liability insurance and two key safe, one for you one for another signatory.
You state there are no reasons for the ownership of semi automatic rifles. I have argued that they have plenty of legitimate uses, from hunting, to sports, to personal defense. These are aspects thru which people make use of such firearms. You feelings are a personal opinion, but are not the reality of everyday use in the US and elsewhere. You may not have overtly state "ban all guns", but your argument is founded on the idea of restricting access as much as possible for people to own guns.
What do you consider to be a low power firearm. What are the quantitative differences in effect between a bolt action rifle and a semi automatic one? A pistol or a shotgun?
I'm not against the concept of training being required to purchase a firearm. However, once again, you are imposing restrictions on people who are already following the law. They would pose no barrier to anyone who is looking to act in a murderous fashion.
You realise that semi automatic rifles account for a fraction of 1% of annual gun deaths? One of the yearly statistics published by the FBI, 2010 iirc, had say 760 deaths from said rifles, out of some 30,000 total deaths. So if your goal is to effect a real decrease in the overall number of annual deaths, I fail to see what an Assault Weapon ban is meant to accomplish. Especially given, all available data from the one enacted in 1994, shows that it had no measurable impact, whatsoever.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »A poodle can kill a man but a Rottweiller is on the restricted breeds list because it can do so much quicker and effectively. It's about capability. i mean, you can go on a shooting spree with a revolver if you want but a semi auto would make you more effective and efficient.
A revolver is semi auto fyi.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes so certain quarters of the us population keep saying. Gun ownership doesn't mean you are allowed to get your gun anytime someone pisses you off which seems to be the what happened here. Mental health is the usual point rolled out by people like you who can't get past the fact that Americans have an unhealthy fascination with guns. I suppose you think guns don't kill people as well ?
yeah and this gob****e in Florida used it moving human targets. Home Defense ? He went into a school for Christ sake.
Do you think there should increased back round checks and a database to stop this kind of thing ? Or do you believe there should be less regulations and everyone fend for themselves ? Also what is your take on sandy hook ? If only those six year olds had guns ?
What increases over the current background checks do you propose? What manner of deterrent is a database going to be?0 -
The problem with the argument that "nothing will work, therefore we should do nothing" is that there's a logical corollary: doing nothing isn't working, therefore something should be done.
That's not to argue that the reflex "something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do this" approach is the right one. If something effective isn't done, that's worse than useless, because it gives plausibility to the "let's do nothing" brigade.
The problem is that every proposal is met with "taking away our God-given rights to own the means to kill people" codology. If you feel that all public safety arguments are trumped by your right to possess and use something that's designed for the explicit purpose of killing something or someone, you're part of the problem, whether you're prepared to admit that or not.
I mean, jebus. Someone who can't legally purchase alcohol can legally purchase a firearm. In any civilised country, that would be considered batsh*t insane. The fact that people will argue that it's a perfectly sensible status quo that needs to be maintained at all costs is mind-boggling.
And that's why it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the topic. Pro-second amendment Americans are quite simply living in a parallel universe. They don't share a common frame of reference with the rest of the species. And the real tragedy is that they are a tiny minority of Americans - but they're the ones with the guns.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »
You realise that semi automatic rifles account for a fraction of 1% of annual gun deaths? One of the yearly statistics published by the FBI, 2010 iirc, had say 760 deaths from said rifles, out of some 30,000 total deaths. So if your goal is to effect a real decrease in the overall number of annual deaths, I fail to see what an Assault Weapon ban is meant to accomplish. Especially given, all available data from the one enacted in 1994, shows that it had no measurable impact, whatsoever.
What % of mass school shootings are carried out with semi automatic weapons,0 -
tabby aspreme wrote: »What % of mass school shootings are carried out with semi automatic weapons,
Almost every firearm is a semi automatic, bar bolt or pump action variants.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »The problem with the argument that "nothing will work, therefore we should do nothing" is that there's a logical corollary: doing nothing isn't working, therefore something should be done.
That's not to argue that the reflex "something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do this" approach is the right one. If something effective isn't done, that's worse than useless, because it gives plausibility to the "let's do nothing" brigade.
The problem is that every proposal is met with "taking away our God-given rights to own the means to kill people" codology. If you feel that all public safety arguments are trumped by your right to possess and use something that's designed for the explicit purpose of killing something or someone, you're part of the problem, whether you're prepared to admit that or not.
I mean, jebus. Someone who can't legally purchase alcohol can legally purchase a firearm. In any civilised country, that would be considered batsh*t insane. The fact that people will argue that it's a perfectly sensible status quo that needs to be maintained at all costs is mind-boggling.
And that's why it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the topic. Pro-second amendment Americans are quite simply living in a parallel universe. They don't share a common frame of reference with the rest of the species. And the real tragedy is that they are a tiny minority of Americans - but they're the ones with the guns.
I am not making an argument that nothing could work. I'm against banning certain types of firearms based off of the fact that they look scary to a section of the population.
What would work? Better mental health care resources. Improved education on the safe handling of firearms. Better policing and addressing the under lying issues at the root of violence in our society.
Those aren't headline grabbers like banning rifles would be though, so they don't garner the support of those on the anti-gun side of the divide, but they would do more to change the numbers of people dying than would be achieved by making AR pattern rifles illegal.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »The problem with the argument that "nothing will work, therefore we should do nothing" is that there's a logical corollary: doing nothing isn't working, therefore something should be done.
That's not to argue that the reflex "something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do this" approach is the right one. If something effective isn't done, that's worse than useless, because it gives plausibility to the "let's do nothing" brigade.
The problem is that every proposal is met with "taking away our God-given rights to own the means to kill people" codology. If you feel that all public safety arguments are trumped by your right to possess and use something that's designed for the explicit purpose of killing something or someone, you're part of the problem, whether you're prepared to admit that or not.
I mean, jebus. Someone who can't legally purchase alcohol can legally purchase a firearm. In any civilised country, that would be considered batsh*t insane. The fact that people will argue that it's a perfectly sensible status quo that needs to be maintained at all costs is mind-boggling.
And that's why it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the topic. Pro-second amendment Americans are quite simply living in a parallel universe. They don't share a common frame of reference with the rest of the species. And the real tragedy is that they are a tiny minority of Americans - but they're the ones with the guns.
I think the point that most people are making is that there is a larger, root problem that needs to be understood better and addressed. What exactly is it that’s making these people so cold and dead inside that they could possibly do something so horrific as shooting children? Let’s set aside guns entirely for a moment, as a person with that level of intent to kill the innocent will inevitably find a way to do it, be it bombs, a car, or whatever else can be used. What is happening in American society that’s causing people to want to carry out these acts in the first place? Guns have been woven into the fabric of American life since the revolutionary war, and it hasn’t been but for the last 20 years or so that we have seen this kind of violence in the country, so what changed?
I’m not saying gun control isn’t a valid discussion, but I myself am more worried about what is happening in American society that’s causing the violence. I think that once we get a better grasp on that we can not only drop a large amount of gun violence, but violence in all its forms.0 -
TheTravelLife wrote: »I think the point that most people are making is that there is a larger, root problem that needs to be understood better and addressed. What exactly is it that’s making these people so cold and dead inside that they could possibly do something so horrific as shooting children? Let’s set aside guns entirely for a moment, as a person with that level of intent to kill the innocent will inevitably find a way to do it, be it bombs, a car, or whatever else can be used. What is happening in American society that’s causing people to want to carry out these acts in the first place? Guns have been woven into the fabric of American life since the revolutionary war, and it hasn’t been but for the last 20 years or so that we have seen this kind of violence in the country, so what changed?
I’m not saying gun control isn’t a valid discussion, but I myself am more worried about what is happening in American society that’s causing the violence. I think that once we get a better grasp on that we can not only drop a large amount of gun violence, but violence in all its forms.
Some people are just broken. They lack the capacity for humanity. No amount of intervention will fix them.
America is not a place more prone to crime than other first world countries but you are vastly more likely to die as a result of that crime. The only real difference is access to firearms.0 -
I don’t think it’s an unreasonable position to take to want to know what has changed in the last 20 years that’s caused this surge of mass murders. Again, I’m not saying that gun control is somehow an illegitimate discussion to have, but I think to just point at guns and say “ban them and it will solve all these problems” is the solution for the lazy. We can discuss gun control in addition to what’s happening to cause the increase in murder but to simply say “ban guns” is a cop out, a short sighted solution to a long term problem, and unfortunately doesn’t bring any benefit for future generations who will have new technology to induce good or evil. The second amendment was written 230-something years ago, when muskets were the AR-15 of the day, in another 15, 20, 50 years who knows what developments will come.Captain Obvious wrote: »TheTravelLife wrote: »I think the point that most people are making is that there is a larger, root problem that needs to be understood better and addressed. What exactly is it that’s making these people so cold and dead inside that they could possibly do something so horrific as shooting children? Let’s set aside guns entirely for a moment, as a person with that level of intent to kill the innocent will inevitably find a way to do it, be it bombs, a car, or whatever else can be used. What is happening in American society that’s causing people to want to carry out these acts in the first place? Guns have been woven into the fabric of American life since the revolutionary war, and it hasn’t been but for the last 20 years or so that we have seen this kind of violence in the country, so what changed?
I’m not saying gun control isn’t a valid discussion, but I myself am more worried about what is happening in American society that’s causing the violence. I think that once we get a better grasp on that we can not only drop a large amount of gun violence, but violence in all its forms.
Some people are just broken. They lack the capacity for humanity. No amount of intervention will fix them.
America is not a place more prone to crime than other first world countries but you are vastly more likely to die as a result of that crime. The only real difference is access to firearms.
I just think it’s short sighted and we should invest the time and thought and resources into finding the root problem.
You’re right though, there always have been and always will be some people who are just dead inside and have no humanity. But the rise in mass killings over the last 20 years, specifically localized to the United States, especially when compared to countries like Switzerland, there is clearly something else happening.
Just my humble two cents0 -
TheTravelLife wrote: »I don’t think it’s an unreasonable position to take to want to know what has changed in the last 20 years that’s caused this surge of mass murders. Again, I’m not saying that gun control is somehow an illegitimate discussion to have, but I think to just point at guns and say “ban them and it will solve all these problems” is the solution for the lazy. We can discuss gun control in addition to what’s happening to cause the increase in murder but to simply say “ban guns” is a cop out, a short sighted solution to a long term problem, and unfortunately doesn’t bring any benefit for future generations who will have new technology to induce good or evil. The second amendment was written 230-something years ago, when muskets were the AR-15 of the day, in another 15, 20, 50 years who knows what developments will come.
I just think it’s short sighted and we should invest the time and thought and resources into finding the root problem.
You’re right though, there always have been and always will be some people who are just dead inside and have no humanity. But the rise in mass killings over the last 20 years, specifically localized to the United States, especially when compared to countries like Switzerland, there is clearly something else happening.
Just my humble two cents
Has there actually been a rise though?0 -
TheTravelLife wrote: »I think the point that most people are making is that there is a larger, root problem that needs to be understood better and addressed. What exactly is it that’s making these people so cold and dead inside that they could possibly do something so horrific as shooting children? Let’s set aside guns entirely for a moment, as a person with that level of intent to kill the innocent will inevitably find a way to do it, be it bombs, a car, or whatever else can be used. What is happening in American society that’s causing people to want to carry out these acts in the first place? Guns have been woven into the fabric of American life since the revolutionary war, and it hasn’t been but for the last 20 years or so that we have seen this kind of violence in the country, so what changed?
I’m not saying gun control isn’t a valid discussion, but I myself am more worried about what is happening in American society that’s causing the violence. I think that once we get a better grasp on that we can not only drop a large amount of gun violence, but violence in all its forms.
Talking about the root problem is all well and good, but it would be good in the meantime if that root problem wasn't supplemented by the ubiquitous presence of guns in American society. Mental health discussions are perfectly valid and perfectly relevant, but are far too often being used as a smokescreen to mask the fact that, while there are means such as bombs and cars to cause death and destruction, the major common denominator in the worst atrocities in the USA has been the firearm. Bombs require a certain level of expertise and planning while vehicles, though we have seen their destructive power, have tactical limitations. Guns are obtainable in the USA with ludicrous ease and allow for tactical, nimble assaults both outdoors and indoors; such as inside a school.
The American obsession with guns and the Second Amendment which cements it in place are an anachronism -- a relic of a bygone 'Frontier' era which has survived on a diet of endemic paranoia and a misplaced sense of patriotism. The problem is that a large section of their society is unwilling to have a rational thoughtful discussion on addressing what is very clearly an enormous problem, and stick their fingers in their ears at the sheer "un-Americanness" of it all.
If Americans cannot yet bear the 'cold turkey' approach to their beloved death contraptions, then surely the first step is ending the prevalence and proliferation of high-powered weapons -- without the Gun Nuts getting all 'you hate America' or the Smokescreeners saying that we should act first on mental health. Surely any person who is concerned about someone breaking into their home with violent intent can rely on a light handgun with a legally-limited amount of traceable bullets? Would it not be a first step to at least meaningfully try to limit an individual's ability to be in possession of weapons and ammunition which allow for the killing of a dozen people?
One need look no further than this breathtakingly myopic video from the NRA, calling for the fortification of schools, the arming of teachers and criticising the fact that an armed 'good guy' was not 'seconds away' from the killer on a school campus of 3,000 students. It is this kind of entrenched idiocy which sadly ensures that the gun control problem will rumble on painfully for a long, long time.
https://www.nratv.com/series/stinchfield/video/stinchfield-dan-bongino-fortifying-security-for-americas-schools/episode/stinchfield-season-2-episode-330 -
Advertisement
-
Has the availability of these weapons increased?
But that really is sidetracking the debate. No evidence has been produced to backup the assertion that the US suffers from higher levels of mental health issues than other countries.
The one, glaring, difference is the availability and culture of guns.
So whilst looking to deal with mental health issues is of course part of the problem, it is not the biggest component of it.
At this stage it is clear that it is a crisis, one that nobody seems to be able to stop. What do you do in a crisis? You look to contain and reduce it, and once under control you look at longer term solutions.
Thus a border wall and muslim ban. Stop the problem getting larger and then look at longer term solutions. Why are the very people who think they are good ideas totally against the same form of input for this terrible situation.
Stop the sale of guns until a thorough investigation is undertaken as to the underlying problems (something the NRA has successful lobbied against).
A complete review of the system around gun sales, both new and 2nd hand, needs to be undertaken. The manufacturers need to be quizzed as to why they have done nothing to make their products safer.
A review of what type of guns, and ammunition are actually required as opposed to wanted.
A review of why so many accidents are happening. A review of how all these shooters are not being noticed.
The latest is that the FBI are to blame. They should be locking up any body who makes remarks on social media. So, freedom of speech is now less important than freedom of guns. It is deflection. Blame the FBI rather than focus on the reality that you can't watch these people 24hrs a day and as he hadn't done anything he couldn't be locked up. Are they suggesting that the FBI should have the power to take away his guns? Who decides?0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »Talking about the root problem is all well and good, but it would be good in the meantime if that root problem wasn't supplemented by the ubiquitous presence of guns in American society. Mental health discussions are perfectly valid and perfectly relevant, but are far too often being used as a smokescreen to mask the fact that, while there are means such as bombs and cars to cause death and destruction, the major common denominator in the worst atrocities in the USA has been the firearm. Bombs require a certain level of expertise and planning while vehicles, though we have seen their destructive power, have tactical limitations. Guns are obtainable in the USA with ludicrous ease and allow for tactical, nimble assaults both outdoors and indoors; such as inside a school.
The American obsession with guns and the Second Amendment which cements it in place are an anachronism -- a relic of a bygone 'Frontier' era which has survived on a diet of endemic paranoia and a misplaced sense of patriotism. The problem is that a large section of their society is unwilling to have a rational thoughtful discussion on addressing what is very clearly an enormous problem, and stick their fingers in their ears at the sheer "un-Americanness" of it all.
If Americans cannot yet bear the 'cold turkey' approach to their beloved death contraptions, then surely the first step is ending the prevalence and proliferation of high-powered weapons -- without the Gun Nuts getting all 'you hate America' or the Smokescreeners saying that we should act first on mental health. Surely any person who is concerned about someone breaking into their home with violent intent can rely on a light handgun with a legally-limited amount of traceable bullets? Would it not be a first step to at least meaningfully try to limit an individual's ability to be in possession of weapons and ammunition which allow for the killing of a dozen people?
One need look no further than this breathtakingly myopic video from the NRA, calling for the fortification of schools, the arming of teachers and criticising the fact that an armed 'good guy' was not 'seconds away' from the killer on a school campus of 3,000 students. It is this kind of entrenched idiocy which sadly ensures that the gun control problem will rumble on painfully for a long, long time.
https://www.nratv.com/series/stinchfield/video/stinchfield-dan-bongino-fortifying-security-for-americas-schools/episode/stinchfield-season-2-episode-33
Those like myself who are pro-gun are perfectly willing to have a rational debate about issues. It folks like yourself, who speak of death machines and talk about high power weapons without any understanding at all of what it is you're talking about, who make that conversation impossible.
Your ideas seek to punish people who are already law abiding, conscientious owners and users of firearms. I've yet to hear of a criminal who was deterred by the fact that his law breaking was illegal. Reference Prohibition or the War on Drugs for how well that line of reasoning works.0 -
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/08/02/amid-shortage-of-psychiatric-beds-mentally-ill-face-long-waits-for-treatment
An interesting article here, talking about the overall decline in availability of mental health resources in the US, and the profound impact on those people who are left high and dry.
Goes back to the argument made that while may not be a higher level of individuals dealing with mental health issues in the US, the resources to treat them are lacking.0 -
It's incredible despite the 1.5 million deaths since 1968 that those on the pro gun side seek to deflect to every possible reason except the prevalence and easy accessibility to high powered and semi automatic weapons. I'm intrigued as to why it is necessary to go hunting with a weapon easily modified to fire hundreds of rounds a minute. Are Americans really that bad a shot that they need rapid fire in the hopes of hitting a target? But hey I live in Ireland far away form the nuts that advocate for everyone to have weapons to stop the government becoming tyrannical.
These threads should just be copied and pasted as there will be another mass killing soon with the same b.s. trotted out by the pro gun side. I wonder can anyone say just how high does the body count of children need to go before action is taken?0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »Those like myself who are pro-gun are perfectly willing to have a rational debate about issues. It folks like yourself, who speak of death machines and talk about high power weapons without any understanding at all of what it is you're talking about, who make that conversation impossible.
Your ideas seek to punish people who are already law abiding, conscientious owners and users of firearms. I've yet to hear of a criminal who was deterred by the fact that his law breaking was illegal. Reference Prohibition or the War on Drugs for how well that line of reasoning works.
It is interesting therefore that, as someone who claims to seek rational debate, you simply say that I have no idea what I'm talking about and then claim the conversation is therefore impossible. Ironically, your response pretty much vindicates exactly what I have written above. In any case, if the use of the term 'death machine' is one which you find offensive or inaccurate, then I would be interested in hearing what other euphemisms can be attributed to machines which are designed specifically to kill.
But here, once more, we find ourselves tossed into that most typical of smokescreens when it comes to the the pro-gun lobby; pussy-footing around over what is 'high powered'. No, I am not an expert on guns and I am sure your definition of 'high powered' is of a much higher threshold to mine. What I do know however is that if I were to walk into a crowded building with the intent of killing as many people as I can, I will find it much more difficult to inflict a high death toll with a revolver than I would with , say, an AR-15 or similar style firearm.
Your final point is perplexing. Is it to say that we should fear making anything illegal on the basis that some people will try to continue the activity? I have no doubt that tighter gun laws would encourage black market activity, but I cannot imagine that it would come anywhere close to the current ease with which people can freely and openly purchase weapons in the USA. As for 'punishing' people, I am yet to hear any convincing argument as why a person needs anything more than a small handgun with a regulated ration of ammunition for personal protection, or why a hunter needs anything more than a hunting rifle.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »It is interesting therefore that, as someone who claims to seek rational debate, you simply say that I have no idea what I'm talking about and then claim the conversation is therefore impossible. Ironically, your response pretty much vindicates exactly what I have written above. In any case, if the use of the term 'death machine' is one which you find offensive or inaccurate, then I would be interested in hearing what other euphemisms can be attributed to machines which are designed specifically to kill.
But here, once more, we find ourselves tossed into that most typical of smokescreens when it comes to the the pro-gun lobby; pussy-footing around over what is 'high powered'. No, I am not an expert on guns and I am sure your definition of 'high powered' is of a much higher threshold to mine. What I do know however is that if I were to walk into a crowded building with the intent of killing as many people as I can, I will find it much more difficult to inflict a high death toll with a revolver than I would with , say, an AR-15 or similar style firearm.
Your final point is perplexing. Is it to say that we should fear making anything illegal on the basis that some people will try to continue the activity? I have no doubt that tighter gun laws would encourage black market activity, but I cannot imagine that it would come anywhere close to the current ease with which people can freely and openly purchase weapons in the USA. As for 'punishing' people, I am yet to hear any convincing argument as why a person needs anything more than a small handgun with a regulated ration of ammunition for personal protection, or why a hunter needs anything more than a hunting rifle.
To tackle your last point first, the vast majority of murders carried out annually with guns, are of illegal origin. Banning types of guns in an effort to reduce the murder rate is going to accomplish SFA. You realise also, that handguns would account for the majority of guns used for illegal purposes? Yet you are focused so determinedly on rifles.
The reason it is difficult to talk with people such as yourself, is that your starting position is that guns are bad, and people shouldn't have them. You demonise particular types of firearms, without a solid grasp of how they work, what they are used for or how they compare to other types. You throw out phrases like high power, high capacity etc as to why a AR type rifle ought to be banned, yet day you have no issue with handguns or bolt action rifles. They have just as much destructive power in the wrong hands.
That is really the crux of the issue. You want to prevent people from rightfully possessing guns because criminals use them to murder. I don't accept that this is a method which will effectively combat criminality or reduce deaths and I don't believe in the concept of mass punishment.0 -
Spoken like an American lolAbusesToilets wrote: »ArthurDayne wrote: »It is interesting therefore that, as someone who claims to seek rational debate, you simply say that I have no idea what I'm talking about and then claim the conversation is therefore impossible. Ironically, your response pretty much vindicates exactly what I have written above. In any case, if the use of the term 'death machine' is one which you find offensive or inaccurate, then I would be interested in hearing what other euphemisms can be attributed to machines which are designed specifically to kill.
But here, once more, we find ourselves tossed into that most typical of smokescreens when it comes to the the pro-gun lobby; pussy-footing around over what is 'high powered'. No, I am not an expert on guns and I am sure your definition of 'high powered' is of a much higher threshold to mine. What I do know however is that if I were to walk into a crowded building with the intent of killing as many people as I can, I will find it much more difficult to inflict a high death toll with a revolver than I would with , say, an AR-15 or similar style firearm.
Your final point is perplexing. Is it to say that we should fear making anything illegal on the basis that some people will try to continue the activity? I have no doubt that tighter gun laws would encourage black market activity, but I cannot imagine that it would come anywhere close to the current ease with which people can freely and openly purchase weapons in the USA. As for 'punishing' people, I am yet to hear any convincing argument as why a person needs anything more than a small handgun with a regulated ration of ammunition for personal protection, or why a hunter needs anything more than a hunting rifle.
To tackle your last point first, the vast majority of murders carried out annually with guns, are of illegal origin. Banning types of guns in an effort to reduce the murder rate is going to accomplish SFA. You realise also, that handguns would account for the majority of guns used for illegal purposes? Yet you are focused so determinedly on rifles.
The reason it is difficult to talk with people such as yourself, is that your starting position is that guns are bad, and people shouldn't have them. You demonise particular types of firearms, without a solid grasp of how they work, what they are used for or how they compare to other types. You throw out phrases like high power, high capacity etc as to why a AR type rifle ought to be banned, yet day you have no issue with handguns or bolt action rifles. They have just as much destructive power in the wrong hands.
That is really the crux of the issue. You want to prevent people from rightfully possessing guns because criminals use them to murder. I don't accept that this is a method which will effectively combat criminality or reduce deaths and I don't believe in the concept of mass punishment.0 -
TheTravelLife wrote: »Spoken like an American lol
Yes, what's your point? The topic is US gun control after all0 -
Just making an observation. Believe it or not I lean towards your side of the debate. That comment wasn’t a shot at yaAbusesToilets wrote: »TheTravelLife wrote: »Spoken like an American lol
Yes, what's your point? The topic is US gun control after all0 -
Advertisement
-
TheTravelLife wrote: »Just making an observation. Believe it or not I lean towards your side of the debate. That comment wasn’t a shot at ya
Fair enough, sorry if I came across belligerent.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »To tackle your last point first, the vast majority of murders carried out annually with guns, are of illegal origin. Banning types of guns in an effort to reduce the murder rate is going to accomplish SFA. You realise also, that handguns would account for the majority of guns used for illegal purposes? Yet you are focused so determinedly on rifles.
The reason is difficult to talk with people such as yourself, is that your starting position is that guns are bad, and people shouldn't have them. You demonise particular types of firearms, without a solid grasp of how they work, what they are used for or how they compare to other types. You throw out phrases like high power, high capacity etc as to why a AR type rifle ought to be banned, yet day you have no issue with handguns or bolt action rifles. They have just as much destructive power in the wrong hands.
That is really the crux of the issue. You want to prevent people from rightfully possessing guns because criminals use them to murder. I don't accept that this is a method which will effectively combat criminality or reduce deaths and I don't believe in the concept of mass punishment.
You speak as if problems can only be solved in a 'one-solution-must-fix-everything' basis. I certainly have a problem with handguns and bolt-action rifles being in the wrong hands, but America has proven itself unwilling and incapable of accepting a complete overhaul of its gun laws, and so it seems we can only look towards incremental ways of addressing the issues. The overall murder rate and the use of handguns needs to be tackled, but can we we not sensibly first move to address the issue of innocent people, including schoolkids, being put at the mercy of madmen with weapons capable of killing multiple and even dozens of people in a short space of time?
I think it's somewhat unfair that you think my opinion is tainted on the simplistic premise that I don't like guns. Again, it's very difficult for me to believe that you are as inclined as you say you are towards rational debate, when you downgrade the validity of my views purely on the basis that my opinion on guns is different to yours! And to be perfectly honest with you, it's not as if I don't pay due regard to the opinions of the pro-gun folks. I listen intently to what it is they are arguing for -- hell I even spent some time on the NRA website earlier watching their videos and getting to know what it is they are trying to protect. The two major themes I see arising from their views are self-protection and the use of weapons for hunting or sport. So I ask myself, well, where can we find an incremental way forward? Contrast that view with the opinion of the pro-gun lobby who seem to be of the rather obtuse view that nothing can or should be done about the issue at all.
So let's rationalise then, as you say you wish to do, and get the first question clarified. Do you think the average American citizen really needs anything more than a handgun with a regulated amount of ammunition to protect themselves, or anything more than a bolt-action rifle for hunting? I'm not saying I have no problem with that, but maybe it's a first step in showing Americans that there can be benefits to gun control and then they can, incrementally, tackle the deeper issues. Or of course, we can just say sod everything, do nothing, and wait for the next horror story from a school.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »So let's rationalise then, as you say you wish to do, and get the first question clarified. Do you think the average American citizen really needs anything more than a handgun with a regulated amount of ammunition to protect themselves, or anything more than a bolt-action rifle for hunting? I'm not saying I have no problem with that, but maybe it's a first step in showing Americans that there can be benefits to gun control and then they can, incrementally, tackle the deeper issues. Or of course, we can just say sod everything, do nothing, and wait for the next horror story from a school.
I do, yes. In fact, I would be more in favor of the ownership of rifles than pistols.
Semi auto rifles are excellent for hunting purposes, for home defense and are a major part of target shooting. You are in favor of removing rifles for their potential use in crimes, however, the statistics show they have accounted for a fraction of shooting crimes. It is only in the recent spate of spree killings that they have gained visibility.
I would be in favor of increased training being a requirement for purchasing a firearm. I have concerns over whether it could be fairly implemented without infringing upon the rights of individuals etc.
I also believe in the intent of the 2nd, as derided as it in on here.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote:I also believe in the intent of the 2nd, as derided as it in on here.
Drawn up at a time when single shot muzzle loading was the predominant firearm. Times change as should laws .0 -
abuses, what sort of additional controls and education do you envisage.
increase waiting times between apply and approval?
limit certain weapons until certain competencies are achieved?
only members of registered gun clubs allow access to more than one weapon without signout by gun club.
gun manufactures to be held liable if their weapon is used in such an event like the school shooting?
bare in mind, based on your points about other proposals, that everyone should reject your ideas unless they deal with everything immediately.0 -
abuses, what sort of additional controls and education do you envisage.
increase waiting times between apply and approval?
limit certain weapons until certain competencies are achieved?
only members of registered gun clubs allow access to more than one weapon without signout by gun club.
gun manufactures to be held liable if their weapon is used in such an event like the school shooting?
bare in mind, based on your points about other proposals, that everyone should reject your ideas unless they deal with everything immediately.
I would be in favor of education and testing being a requirement for ownership, provided it was a transparent and not an onerous burden to access. I would like to see an educational program in schools, similar to driver's education.
Allow anyone to access the NICS system for conducting background checks, which would help combat straw purchasing.
I don't see how you can hold a manufacturer accountable for the actions of someone using their product. It wouldn't pass muster with any other product.0 -
Advertisement
-
AbusesToilets wrote: »I do, yes. In fact, I would be more in favor of the ownership of rifles than pistols.
Semi auto rifles are excellent for hunting purposes, for home defense and are a major part of target shooting. You are in favor of removing rifles for their potential use in crimes, however, the statistics show they have accounted for a fraction of shooting crimes. It is only in the recent spate of spree killings that they have gained visibility.
I would be in favor of increased training being a requirement for purchasing a firearm. I have concerns over whether it could be fairly implemented without infringing upon the rights of individuals etc.
I also believe in the intent of the 2nd, as derided as it in on here.
But it isn't a question of it being 'excellent' though is it? It's a question of proportionality. I'm sure there are is all manner of weaponry which would be "excellent" for defending my flat -- but proportionality would suggest that a person should only need what is necessary to scare off or, if needs be, shoot an intruder. Sure, crime is higher in the United States than it is here, and I can fully understand any concern that one or a small group of criminals might attempt to break into your home and harm you or your family. But in how many instances has there been a case where a normal American homeowner has had to fend off a large group of intruders at once -- and do those instances really entail that the exceptional nature of such mass incursions onto your property really justify the current leniency of American gun laws?
The talk of 'rights' is certainly one I find hard to swallow. I find it utterly remarkable that, in a developed first world country and most powerful nation on earth, I am somehow supposed to feel an iota of concern for the 'right' of an individual to have a stockpile of lethal weaponry for 'self-protection' --- all while innocent people, including children at their school desks, are made to live under laws of such insane inadequacy that a mentally unstable teenager can access weaponry capable of killing dozens in a short space of time.
I confess to, and apologise for, having absolutely no idea why you think 'increased training' will do anything at all to help whatsoever.
The intent of the second amendment is an intent as of the year 1791. The world has changed, guns have gotten much more efficient in their ability to kill en masse -- the law has to modernise with that reality.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »But it isn't a question of it being 'excellent' though is it? It's a question of proportionality. I'm sure there are is all manner of weaponry which would be "excellent" for defending my flat -- but proportionality would suggest that a person should only need what is necessary to scare off or, if needs be, shoot an intruder. Sure, crime is higher in the United States than it is here, and I can fully understand any concern that one or a small group of criminals might attempt to break into your home and harm you or your family. But in how many instances has there been a case where a normal American homeowner has had to fend off a large group of intruders at once -- and do those instances really entail that the exceptional nature of such mass incursions onto your property really justify the current leniency of American gun laws?
The talk of 'rights' is certainly one I find hard to swallow. I find it utterly remarkable that, in a developed first world country and most powerful nation on earth, I am somehow supposed to feel an iota of concern for the 'right' of an individual to have a stockpile of lethal weaponry for 'self-protection' --- all while innocent people, including children at their school desks, are made to live under laws of such insane inadequacy that a mentally unstable teenager can access weaponry capable of killing dozens in a short space of time.
I confess to, and apologise for, having absolutely no idea why you think 'increased training' will do anything at all to help whatsoever.
The intent of the second amendment is an intent as of the year 1791. The world has changed, guns have gotten much more efficient in their ability to kill en masse -- the law has to modernise with that reality.
I would counter that the possibility of an intruder having to deal with an armed homeowner is a strong deterrent to such crimes. If someone has broken into my house and is a threat to my family, they have abrogated any concern in my mind for their safety. A Google check could point you to any number of instances of both armed burgalies where a family has been murdered and where homeowners have defended themselves against assailants.
You are tying togther two disparate things, a law abiding gun owner and someone committing a spree killing. That's a specious argument, and wildly unfair to them. Would o be justifed in blaming all truck drivers for the attack in Nice? All Muslims for terrorist attacks?
The 2nd is as relevant as it has ever been. The available firearms have evolved over time, but that doesn't change the basic concept. It's meant to serve as a check, however unlikely, against the possibility of a tyrannical government.0 -
I guess that's why there are no armed intruders in the USA. Oh wait.AbusesToilets wrote: »I would counter that the possibility of an intruder having to deal with an armed homeowner is a strong deterrent to such crimes.
OK, let's untie those two things. Would you agree with making it illegal - and punished harshly - for a convicted felon to own a firearm? How about someone against whom a restraining order for domestic violence has been issued?You are tying togther two disparate things, a law abiding gun owner and someone committing a spree killing. That's a specious argument, and wildly unfair to them.
If you think your Glock is going to protect you against a tyrannical government with an Air Force and nuclear weapons, I guess you could say that the 2nd is as relevant as it has ever been.The 2nd is as relevant as it has ever been. The available firearms have evolved over time, but that doesn't change the basic concept. It's meant to serve as a check, however unlikely, against the possibility of a tyrannical government.
The problem is that you're doing the sort of conflation you criticise in others: you're talking about law-abiding citizens owning guns for recreation and home defence, but justify their right to do so by reference to something that only makes sense in the context of citizen militias.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »OK, let's untie those two things. Would you agree with making it illegal - and punished harshly - for a convicted felon to own a firearm? How about someone against whom a restraining order for domestic violence has been issued? If you think your Glock is going to protect you against a tyrannical government with an Air Force and nuclear weapons, I guess you could say that the 2nd is as relevant as it has ever been.
The problem is that you're doing the sort of conflation you criticise in others: you're talking about law-abiding citizens owning guns for recreation and home defence, but justify their right to do so by reference to something that only makes sense in the context of citizen militias.
To your first argument, those are both laws in place. The lautenburg (sp) act pertains to domestic violence offenders.
As to your second point, there is no contradiction there. What prevents a citizen from both following the law, and opposing a tyrannical government? The wars of the last 2 decades have shown how effectively a comparitively lightly armed force can take on an advanced military.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »
What prevents a citizen from both following the law, and opposing a tyrannical government? The wars of the last 2 decades have shown how effectively a comparitively lightly armed force can take on an advanced military.
Honestly, reading things like this leave me at an utter loss as to how Americans think. There is massive support and pride in the USA for its incredibly powerful army and I don't hear many in the pro-gun lobby calling for a reduced military budget. So . . . . in an exercise of supreme self-fulfilling irony, Americans both enthusiastically support the concept of having a hugely powerful army but live in fear of a tyrannical government.
Honestly, I don't know how the average American sleeps at night!0 -
Advertisement
-
ArthurDayne wrote:Honestly, I don't know how the average American sleeps at night!
With all the mental gymnastics they put themselves through trying to justify the nonsense they spout.... I'd imagine they'd be so exhausted sleep comes easily.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »Honestly, reading things like this leave me at an utter loss as to how Americans think. There is massive support and pride in the USA for its incredibly powerful army and I don't hear many in the pro-gun lobby calling for a reduced military budget. So . . . . in an exercise of supreme self-fulfilling irony, Americans both enthusiastically support the concept of having a hugely powerful army but live in fear of a tyrannical government.
Honestly, I don't know how the average American sleeps at night!
Perhaps it's because we have seen what happens in countries where the government can act without fear of its citizens.0 -
I think what a lot of people outside the US lack is the understand of that so called “American gun culture”. The Declaration of Independence was only signed but about 240 years ago. Many Americans are only 3-4 generations defended from men who fought a very real war against a very tyrannical rule. Americans are very close to the history that brought them to where they are. Also keep in mind that since the American revolution there has been a civil war, world war 1, world war 2, Vietnam war, and years of war in the Middle East. It’s certainly no wonder why Americans have such distrust of government and feel a need to maintain their own guns. Whether you feel it a reasonable threat or not, I certainly wouldn’t consider their mentality something to be mocked. In fact in many ways it’s admirable to see that American self reliance attitude. Anyways, just think it’s important to understand why Americans are how they are about their guns before dismissing them as “idiots” when it comes to gun control. It might not be an issue in Ireland, but to Americans the fear of government is very real.0
-
-
AbusesToilets wrote: »I would be in favor of education and testing being a requirement for ownership, provided it was a transparent and not an onerous burden to access. I would like to see an educational program in schools, similar to driver's education.
Do you think education is really a problem? It would appear that the people that carry out this mass shootings are more than educated on the use of firearms.
In regards to testing, why shouldn't it be onerous? The ability to own a item with the final purpose of being able to kill something else including a person. Do you not think people should have to prove themselves, rather than take a wait and see approach?AbusesToilets wrote: »Allow anyone to access the NICS system for conducting background checks, which would help combat straw purchasing.
So now we have moved into the realm of not everyone having a right to own guns, you are prepared to accept that certain people shouldn't be trusted. Should a person with a single shoplifting record be banned, for ever of just whilst on probation? What about domestic violence? POTUS thinks they should have access to official state secrets, so surely letting them near a handgun is nothing? And should they be banned from gun clubs and target practice or allowed access to guns at certain times?AbusesToilets wrote: »I don't see how you can hold a manufacturer accountable for the actions of someone using their product. It wouldn't pass muster with any other product.
Yes I agree it would be very difficult. But I really think that the manufacturers are getting away scott free on this. What attempts have they made to make the product safer? Car companies show incredible innovation when forced to make changes. Surely they must carry some burden with dealing with the correct use of the products they are sold?0 -
TheTravelLife wrote: »I think what a lot of people outside the US lack is the understand of that so called “American gun culture”. The Declaration of Independence was only signed but about 240 years ago. Many Americans are only 3-4 generations defended from men who fought a very real war against a very tyrannical rule. Americans are very close to the history that brought them to where they are. Also keep in mind that since the American revolution there has been a civil war, world war 1, world war 2, Vietnam war, and years of war in the Middle East. It’s certainly no wonder why Americans have such distrust of government and feel a need to maintain their own guns. Whether you feel it a reasonable threat or not, I certainly wouldn’t consider their mentality something to be mocked. In fact in many ways it’s admirable to see that American self reliance attitude. Anyways, just think it’s important to understand why Americans are how they are about their guns before dismissing them as “idiots” when it comes to gun control. It might not be an issue in Ireland, but to Americans the fear of government is very real.
Oh believe me, for me it went way beyond something to be mocked when America was faced with a reality of little children being massacred in schools. . . and they did aboslutely not a damn thing about it. Nothing. I have to say, the obtuseness towards this makes my blood boil --- here we are talking about wildly unlikely theories about future dystopias while innocent Americans live with the very real and quite likely reality that schools etc will continue to be attacked by madmen who have been able to acquire weaponry allowing for relatively easy mass murder. Yet Americans are more about conspiracy theories rather than current reality. It is utterly repugnant and, for me, I have spent time 'understanding' the gun-loving side of American society --- but 'understanding' only gets society so far. Action is what drives progress.
I have very little sympathy for any historical angst which Americans may feel about past wars, most of which never reached their shores. Many countries in the developed world have experienced war, and we don't use it as some kind of adolescent cry that 'nobody understands me'.
The time for 'understanding' has been and gone. We all understand it now and we all still think it's dangerously stupid.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »I also believe in the intent of the 2nd, as derided as it in on here.
Do you believe the current reality reflects that intent?0 -
Do you think education is really a problem? It would appear that the people that carry out this mass shootings are more than educated on the use of firearms.
Accidents account for almost as many deaths annually as murders. Education could go towards working on reducing those deaths.In regards to testing, why shouldn't it be onerous? The ability to own a item with the final purpose of being able to kill something else including a person. Do you not think people should have to prove themselves, rather than take a wait and see approach?
Owning a firearm is a right, and I would not be in favor of any measures which could be used as a stealth means of denying someone that right. I don't know if a testing requirement wouldn't be ruled unconstitutional, but I would be in favor of some program. A program similar to what is generally required for a Concealed Carry Permit could work.So now we have moved into the realm of not everyone having a right to own guns, you are prepared to accept that certain people shouldn't be trusted. Should a person with a single shoplifting record be banned, for ever of just whilst on probation? What about domestic violence? POTUS thinks they should have access to official state secrets, so surely letting them near a handgun is nothing? And should they be banned from gun clubs and target practice or allowed access to guns at certain times?
Again, felons and those convicted of domestic abuse are already barred from owning firearms. This has been law for a long time.Yes I agree it would be very difficult. But I really think that the manufacturers are getting away scott free on this. What attempts have they made to make the product safer? Car companies show incredible innovation when forced to make changes. Surely they must carry some burden with dealing with the correct use of the products they are sold?
Firearms are about as safe as they can be, mechanically. What I feel you're talking about is something to prevent their misuse in a criminal sense. Not sure what you envision there, or how you would implement it. What measures do car manufacturers take to prevent their products being used by criminals? I think it's a unrealistic concept all around.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »Do you believe the current reality reflects that intent?
Generally speaking, I do. Times were different then obviously. Citizens were more actively involved in their communities, likely to have been a part of the local or state militia.
Speaking personally, the best defense against tyranny is a politically engaged citizenry. The threat of force should always be an absolute last resort, in the face of egregious predation, and the thought of such a scenario emerging in the US is too terrible to consider imo.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »Accidents account for almost as many deaths annually as murders. Education could go towards working on reducing those deaths.
So would a proper licensing system that requires passing a basic safety test. Even soldiers have to pass a test before they get a live gun don't they?AbusesToilets wrote: »Owning a firearm is a right, and I would not be in favor of any measures which could be used as a stealth means of denying someone that right. I don't know if a testing requirement wouldn't be ruled unconstitutional, but I would be in favor of some program. A program similar to what is generally required for a Concealed Carry Permit could work.
It's not an absolute right though. It's conditional. But for some reason the first half of the Second Amendment is routinely ignored.AbusesToilets wrote: »Again, felons and those convicted of domestic abuse are already barred from owning firearms. This has been law for a long time.
You literally just said "Owning a firearm is a right, and I would not be in favor of any measures which could be used as a stealth means of denying someone that right". So why should felons be denied their right?AbusesToilets wrote: »Firearms are about as safe as they can be, mechanically. What I feel you're talking about is something to prevent their misuse in a criminal sense. Not sure what you envision there, or how you would implement it. What measures do car manufacturers take to prevent their products being used by criminals? I think it's a unrealistic concept all around.
GPS trackers. Dead switches. Alarms. Immobilisers. Chasis numbers. Vehicle registration systems.0 -
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P89CBU8E6jUAdvertisement