Gun Control in the US

ArthurDayne

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.

AbusesToilets

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.

Hitman3000

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 .

Leroy42

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.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

ArthurDayne

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.

AbusesToilets

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.

oscarBravo

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.

I guess that's why there are no armed intruders in the USA. Oh wait.

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.

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?

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.

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.

AbusesToilets

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.

ArthurDayne

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!

Hitman3000

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.

AbusesToilets

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.

TheTravelLife

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.

the_syco

Agree with this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P89CBU8E6jU

Leroy42

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?

ArthurDayne

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.

Captain Obvious

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?

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

AbusesToilets

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.

Captain Obvious

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.

Captain Obvious

AbusesToilets wrote: »

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.

I don't think you are living in the same reality as the U.S.A.

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The lautenburg (sp) act pertains to domestic violence offenders.

The Lautenberg Act is a textbook example of just how reluctant the USA is to enact meaningful gun control. It denies firearms to people who have been subject to restraining orders, if:

• the defendant has had been heard at a hearing - an interim restraining order granted at an ex parte hearing won't prevent access to firearms; and
• the defendant and petitioner are intimate partners - a restraining order only prevents access to firearms if they have a sexual relationship and either live together or have a child.

Someone can take out a restraining order against a family member or roommate, and the defendant is in no way restricted from having a gun. Similarly, someone who in fear of their life obtains an interim restraining order knows that the target of the order can legally possess the means to kill them until there's a full hearing.

You should have to be extraordinarily law-abiding to have access to guns. The balance doesn't work that way in the USA: you're presumed to have a right to own the means to kill someone until you categorically prove that you can't be trusted with it.

What prevents a citizen from both following the law, and opposing a tyrannical government?

Logical contradiction, unless you subscribe to the view that common-sense restrictions on gun ownership is tyranny.

Here's a common-sense measure: guns can only be bought and sold by licensed firearms dealers. Every gun must be registered and can only be lawfully possessed by the registered owner. Does that equate to tyranny, in your view?

AbusesToilets

ArthurDayne wrote: »

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.

People have been dying, day in and day out, in places like Chicago at higher rates than war zones, for years. Where has your outrage been then? The majority dying at the hands of gangs and the like, using illegally procured guns.

The harsh reality is that spectacular attacks like Orlando, Las Vegas et al, account for less than 1% of the deaths every year. The things I've proposed, investing more in mental health care, policing, education etc, would go a lot further at reducing the 30,000 odd deaths a year, than your exhortations to ban those evil black rifles.

Doesn't make for a catchy headline, but then good legislation often doesn't.

AbusesToilets

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Lautenberg Act is a textbook example of just how reluctant the USA is to enact meaningful gun control. It denies firearms to people who have been subject to restraining orders, if:

• the defendant has had been heard at a hearing - an interim restraining order granted at an ex parte hearing won't prevent access to firearms; and
• the defendant and petitioner are intimate partners - a restraining order only prevents access to firearms if they have a sexual relationship and either live together or have a child.

Someone can take out a restraining order against a family member or roommate, and the defendant is in no way restricted from having a gun. Similarly, someone who in fear of their life obtains an interim restraining order knows that the target of the order can legally possess the means to kill them until there's a full hearing.

You should have to be extraordinarily law-abiding to have access to guns. The balance doesn't work that way in the USA: you're presumed to have a right to own the means to kill someone until you categorically prove that you can't be trusted with it. Logical contradiction, unless you subscribe to the view that common-sense restrictions on gun ownership is tyranny.

I imagine that falls into the same category as any other protected right. The whole due process part, where you have to be convicted of a crime before the state can deny you your rights.

Should I be able to enact an order that would prevent you from exercising your right to freely express yourself? To vote? You may not like the fact that gun ownership is a constitutional right, but it is.

Here's a common-sense measure: guns can only be bought and sold by licensed firearms dealers. Every gun must be registered and can only be lawfully possessed by the registered owner. Does that equate to tyranny, in your view?

Registration databases have been shown to be spectacular failures repeatedly to date. Manic has provided examples of that in this thread previously. What barrier would it pose to a criminal? I break in, steal your gun. Does it being on a database do anything to stop me committing a crime with it?

That's not even taking into account the reality of the situation, in that there are over 300million guns in the US and that many people will simply ignore any law that says they have to register their firearms.

AbusesToilets

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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?

Again, I'm not fundamentally against this in general. However, I imagine you wouldn't be in favor of similar measures of conditional right to free speech or voting etc. NO easy solution there.

It's not an absolute right though. It's conditional. But for some reason the first half of the Second Amendment is routinely ignored.



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?

That's a tricky proposition. I would suggest a nuanced approach would be best. I don't agree that felons should lose their voting rights in perpetuity, for example.

GPS trackers. Dead switches. Alarms. Immobilisers. Chasis numbers. Vehicle registration systems.

Perhaps smart gun technology can be implemented in the future. It would have to be cost effective, as any requirement on a manufacturer to include would likely never gain traction otherwise.

Captain Obvious

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, I'm not fundamentally against this in general. However, I imagine you wouldn't be in favor of similar measures of conditional right to free speech or voting etc. NO easy solution there.

Well if exercising free speech or voting rights was regularly resulting in the brutal murder of children I would absolutely be calling for some regulation.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's a tricky proposition. I would suggest a nuanced approach would be best. I don't agree that felons should lose their voting rights in perpetuity, for example.

My point is that it is hypocritical to say it's a right that can't be restricted with simple measures yet stand behind a rule that excludes massive amounts of people. Like I said, it's a conditional right.

AbusesToilets

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Well if exercising free speech or voting rights was regularly resulting in the brutal murder of children I would absolutely be calling for some regulation.




My point is that it is hypocritical to say it's a right that can't be restricted with simple measures yet stand behind a rule that excludes massive amounts of people. Like I said, it's a conditional right.

History has no shortage of examples violence resulting from free speech or malevolent actors being elected. Yet we still see the value to protection those rights.

Any right is conditional, ultimately. My point is that I don't want to see a law put in place that is then used to disenfranchise someone unjustifiably, be gun ownership, free speech, censorship etc. That's a tricky line to walk. There was a discussion on NPR this morning relating to the emergency restraining orders being used in certain states to temporarily remove guns from individuals who were suspected of possible future violent actions. There was a legal expert interviewed, who was of a liberal mindset, who was deadset against those laws. This was on the basis that any law which would base its outcome on a subjective appraisal of an individual, with the goal to deny them a right, is too dangerous to allow. Very easy for such a law to be abused.

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I imagine that falls into the same category as any other protected right. The whole due process part, where you have to be convicted of a crime before the state can deny you your rights.

Should I be able to enact an order that would prevent you from exercising your right to freely express yourself? To vote? You may not like the fact that gun ownership is a constitutional right, but it is.

We're divided by a common language, here. To you, the right to own the means to kill someone is indistinguishable from the right to vote. You can't see any difference whatsoever between disenfranchisement and making it harder to kill people.

And that, frankly, is why I don't think the gun violence problem in the USA can be solved. I think the USA is, tragically, a society that's broken beyond any possibility of redemption. There's literally no other society in the world that would say "hey, I'd love if we didn't have repeated mass murders and school shootings, but unfortunately any meaningful moves in that direction would impinge on my rights to own the means of killing people, and that ain't gonna happen, so school shootings it is."

Registration databases have been shown to be spectacular failures repeatedly to date. Manic has provided examples of that in this thread previously. What barrier would it pose to a criminal? I break in, steal your gun. Does it being on a database do anything to stop me committing a crime with it?

That's a compelling argument to removing laws against murder. They don't stop criminals from committing murder, so what's the point?

That's not even taking into account the reality of the situation, in that there are over 300million guns in the US and that many people will simply ignore any law that says they have to register their firearms.

That'll be those law-abiding citizens that you insist aren't the problem?

Honestly, I don't care what trite responses you come back with. No other country in the world has the f*cked-up relationship with guns that the USA has, and no other country in the world has the problem with gun violence that the USA has. The core of your argument is that as much as you'd love to fix the gun violence problem, it would involved tampering with your country's f*cked-up relationship with guns, and that's too high a price to pay for children's lives.

eire4

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're divided by a common language, here. To you, the right to own the means to kill someone is indistinguishable from the right to vote. You can't see any difference whatsoever between disenfranchisement and making it harder to kill people.

And that, frankly, is why I don't think the gun violence problem in the USA can be solved. I think the USA is, tragically, a society that's broken beyond any possibility of redemption. There's literally no other society in the world that would say "hey, I'd love if we didn't have repeated mass murders and school shootings, but unfortunately any meaningful moves in that direction would impinge on my rights to own the means of killing people, and that ain't gonna happen, so school shootings it is." That's a compelling argument to removing laws against murder. They don't stop criminals from committing murder, so what's the point? That'll be those law-abiding citizens that you insist aren't the problem?

Honestly, I don't care what trite responses you come back with. No other country in the world has the f*cked-up relationship with guns that the USA has, and no other country in the world has the problem with gun violence that the USA has. The core of your argument is that as much as you'd love to fix the gun violence problem, it would involved tampering with your country's f*cked-up relationship with guns, and that's too high a price to pay for children's lives.

It is truly a sickness when the ability to kill people on a mass scale is considered more important then an individuals right to life and to be able to go about life without undue fear of being murdered be it at school, at a concert, at a cinema etc.
The blood of all those murdered children is on the hands of every member of congress, the senate and the current administration who have done nothing to bring forth meaningful gun control legislation and don't even get me started on what I think of the "thoughts and prayers" comments we hear repeated again and again. I think a tweet from a student at the school in Florida hits the proverbial nail on the head when it comes to "thoughts and prayers" her language is very colourful so I assume I cannot post it here but its easy to find her tweet online.

FatherTed

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're divided by a common language, here. To you, the right to own the means to kill someone is indistinguishable from the right to vote. You can't see any difference whatsoever between disenfranchisement and making it harder to kill people.

And that, frankly, is why I don't think the gun violence problem in the USA can be solved. I think the USA is, tragically, a society that's broken beyond any possibility of redemption. There's literally no other society in the world that would say "hey, I'd love if we didn't have repeated mass murders and school shootings, but unfortunately any meaningful moves in that direction would impinge on my rights to own the means of killing people, and that ain't gonna happen, so school shootings it is." That's a compelling argument to removing laws against murder. They don't stop criminals from committing murder, so what's the point? That'll be those law-abiding citizens that you insist aren't the problem?

Honestly, I don't care what trite responses you come back with. No other country in the world has the f*cked-up relationship with guns that the USA has, and no other country in the world has the problem with gun violence that the USA has. The core of your argument is that as much as you'd love to fix the gun violence problem, it would involved tampering with your country's f*cked-up relationship with guns, and that's too high a price to pay for children's lives.

Well said. I don't care about the Second amendment. It ought to be repealed because it allows gun fans to hide behind the so called rights it provides. But what good are those rights when it leads to all these deaths every year? There are other things in the constitution that have been changed so why not this? American gun owners need to get over their obsession of owning their guns. In my opinion there is no need at all for civilian gun ownership because as a society we have utterly failed in how guns are safely procured, the type of guns allowed and who has access to get guns. The liberty of some to own guns should not take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered.