[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;38864392]My idea is this: a person wishing to own a gun should take a psychological exam before they can buy their first gun. After that, they now have a certificate or whatever and can buy basically anything they want.[/QUOTE]
Then what of people like Lanza who don't even buy guns?
Hmm. Good point. In that case you should somehow prove that your guns are securely in a safe.
[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;38864855]Hmm. Good point. In that case you should somehow prove that your guns are securely in a safe.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. We don't know how Lanza got his hands on his mother's guns, and for all we know they were just piled atop one another in some closet. Either way, it's very likely it was irresponsible storage.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;38857420]What do you propose? How can you regulate such a thing without violating the 4th Amendment?[/QUOTE]
Just out of curiosity, would it not be possible for the American government to just change or disregard the amendment?
We have rights in Europe but they're always being changed, David Cameron's plan is to change our human rights to stop prisoners voting and so foreign criminals can be deported
Times are changing, maybe your rights should change too?
[QUOTE=matt.ant;38865039]Just out of curiosity, would it not be possible for the American government to just change or disregard the amendment?
We have rights in Europe but they're always being changed, David Cameron's plan is to change our human rights to stop prisoners voting and so foreign criminals can be deported
Times are changing, maybe your rights should change too?[/QUOTE]
Amendments can be changed or even removed.
But nobody wants/would even be able to, especially not any of amendments in the bill of rights.
There would be so much public and political backlash against a change to the bill of rights especially since it was specifically made to limit government power.
Interpretations of the bill of rights may change a bit, but the roots of them likely won't for a fairly long time.
[QUOTE=Valnar;38865179]Amendments can be changed or even removed.
But nobody wants/would even be able to, especially not any of amendments in the bill of rights.
There would be so much public and political backlash against a change to the bill of rights especially since it was specifically made to limit government power.
Interpretations of the bill of rights may change a bit, but the roots of them likely won't for a fairly long time.[/QUOTE]
But there has to be some change, some time for the benefit of the majority right?
[QUOTE=Valnar;38865179]There would be so much public and political backlash against a change to the bill of rights especially since it was specifically made to limit government power.[/QUOTE]
I still don't get that. Surely the point of "limiting government power" went out the window with the invention of tanks, helicopters, etc.
A bunch of tooled-up rednecks aren't going to cause much of a dent in the US military if the government goes nuts (more nuts than usual I mean).
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;38865512]I still don't get that. Surely the point of "limiting government power" went out the window with the invention of tanks, helicopters, etc.
A bunch of tooled-up rednecks aren't going to cause much of a dent in the US military if the government goes nuts (more nuts than usual I mean).[/QUOTE]
As I've said several times, look what the Afghanis did with a few tens of thousands of men with AKs
[QUOTE=download;38865747]As I've said several times, look what the Afghanis did with a few tens of thousands of men with AKs[/QUOTE]
Yet they haven't removed American presence despite being there for over a decade.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38865988]Yet they haven't removed American presence despite being there for over a decade.[/QUOTE]
Because the Americans want to stay there. Obviously, it's free, it doesn't cost anybody a penny. Oh, let's talk about it with our russian friends shall we? Wait, I forgot, they won't :(
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38865988]Yet they haven't removed American presence despite being there for over a decade.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's because our mission is to "kill literally everything and leave scorched earth" like most wars are. It's hard to completely eliminate a threat when you don't know who's a threat and who isn't, and that each enemy you kill will inspire 3 others to join the cause.
I'm not a fan of the war myself but you're acting like it's a normal ground war when it isn't.
[QUOTE=download;38865747]As I've said several times, look what the Afghanis did with a few tens of thousands of men with AKs[/QUOTE]
wow major difference
#1: foreign occupation
#2: the "framework" for an insurgency already existed, as the population is still very mobile, and not well developed
#3: the entire US military isn't deployed there.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;38867333]Maybe it's because our mission is to "kill literally everything and leave scorched earth" like most wars are. It's hard to completely eliminate a threat when you don't know who's a threat and who isn't, and that each enemy you kill will inspire 3 others to join the cause.[/QUOTE]
Despite this, the Americans have yet to be kicked out.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38864777]Then what of people like Lanza who don't even buy guns?[/QUOTE]
Okay so Lanza didn't buy them, why shouldn't you pass a mental health exam when buying a tool which was designed to kill?
[QUOTE=Call Me Kiwi;38867754]Okay so Lanza didn't buy them, why shouldn't you pass a mental health exam when buying a tool which was designed to kill?[/QUOTE]
You missed the point completely.
See, the guns Lanza used were his mother's. We all know that. She purchased them legally and even if we had mental health exams in place, assuming she still had the guns, there would be nothing stopping Lanza from getting access to those guns the same way he did. Private property transference does not have the same checks enforced by the government, and even if they legislate them, they're awful hard to enforce.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38868114]You missed the point completely.
See, the guns Lanza used were his mother's. We all know that. She purchased them legally and even if we had mental health exams in place, assuming she still had the guns, there would be nothing stopping Lanza from getting access to those guns the same way he did. Private property transference does not have the same checks enforced by the government, and even if they legislate them, they're awful hard to enforce.[/QUOTE]
And you missed maximizers point and dismissed his idea by saying Lanza didn't buy them. Even though he said nothing about Lanza specifically.
I think background checks are all we need. I don't think any form of legislation will be able to stop first time offenders. It's not a perfect system, but Americans value freedom over perceived safety.
Since I'm a law abiding citizen who has no intention to carry out a crime, I don't want buying guns to be a difficult process. However, I will tolerate new laws as long as they don't ban anything. Key point: [B]DON'T BAN ANYTHING. [/B]Tax me, make me go through a stack of paperwork, and wait six months. I don't care. As long as I can buy 16 inch barrels, 30 round magazines, collapsible stocks, and suppressors, etc. I'm fine.
[QUOTE=Call Me Kiwi;38868342]And you missed maximizers point and dismissed his idea by saying Lanza didn't buy them. Even though he said nothing about Lanza specifically.[/QUOTE]
I didn't miss his point at all. I'm simply pointing out that initial mental health checks won't prevent everything. I did not dismiss his idea either - it should behoove you to read.
I just can't understand Americans' fetish with guns. To me (and pretty sure to people living in other countries that aren't shitholes) guns are totally unnecessary. I just do not see why a private citizen would need a gun. As far as reasoning, 2nd amendment, hobby, collecting, target practice, self defense, they all sound bullshit to me.
The second amendment was written over two centuries ago by people who had only seen shitty guns. Also, Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Back then, american was still the 'new world' and it made sense to let people carry arms. But in this day and age? No, people living in the cities can live without them.
As far as hobbies and collection and stuff goes, in my opinion, people's safety is way more important than their weekend hobby. You can't forget that guns are tools invented to kill other things and cannot be compared to collecting stamps, games, etc (something that our resident gun nuts have been arguing). That's like saying 'i collect bombs and I take them to the bomb range and practice safety. But it's not my fault that people misuse them'.
Self defense? I've been mugged and beaten before and even if i had a weapon, i don't think i would have shot him because to me, the punishment for robbery is not death.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
tl;dr: imo, people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, unless they are in the military, career hunters, etc.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;38868363]I think background checks are all we need. I don't think any form of legislation will be able to stop first time offenders. It's not a perfect system, but Americans value freedom over perceived safety.
Since I'm a law abiding citizen who has no intention to carry out a crime, I don't want buying guns to be a difficult process. However, I will tolerate new laws as long as they don't ban anything. Key point: [B]DON'T BAN ANYTHING. [/B]Tax me, make me go through a stack of paperwork, and wait six months. I don't care. As long as I can buy 16 inch barrels, 30 round magazines, collapsible stocks, and suppressors, etc. I'm fine.[/QUOTE]
Considering a firearm has the main purpose of ending the lives of whatever you point it at, buying any form of gun shouldn't really be a simple as turning up to the shop, waiting a few days whilst they find out who you are, and receiving the weapon. Mental health checks for first time buyers seem like a very sensible idea, checking your storage is sound to avoid problems like this recent shooting also seems sensible enough. If you are going to let people buy weapons, at least make sure they know how to keep them from falling into the wrong hands. Outright banning of firearms in the US is nigh impossible now due to how embedded in your culture they are.
Banning things like high-cap magazines, barrel shrouds, pistol grips, accessories in general really, is pretty pointless. I'm a Brit and I can see this. We have no gun culture here, but I can still learn enough about guns to know what is and isn't actually useful to a shooter.
Obviously none of this stops illegal firearms being used. But I'm fairly sure I've read most offences are done with stolen or owned firearms anyway (if I can find a source, I'll post it). So the point is pretty moot for lowering the amount of school shootings at least.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869040]Self defense? I've been mugged and beaten before and even if i had a weapon, i don't think i would have shot him because to me, the punishment for robbery is not death.[/QUOTE]
To expand on this, I see people use the "guns are a deterrent" argument a lot. No. They aren't. If you have a gun, and your attacker has a gun (sometimes a bigger gun if they mean business!), you're both equally as fucked. The criminal gives a rats arse about you, and life isn't a movie, you aren't going to do some amazing quick draw-precision shot to remove the threat. You're likely to fumble, or telegraph your moves, leading to you, you guessed it! Getting your dumb ass shot.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869040]hobby, collecting, target practice, self defense, they all sound bullshit[B] to me. [/B]
[/QUOTE]
You really cant use this as a basis for an argument because its just your opinion.
Self defense, collecting, and hobbies are things that a lot of people hold in very high regard, who are you to say what they want to do with their time and money?
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;38869208]
To expand on this, I see people use the "guns are a deterrent" argument a lot. No. They aren't. If you have a gun, and your attacker has a gun (sometimes a bigger gun if they mean business!), you're both equally as fucked. The criminal gives a rats arse about you, and life isn't a movie, you aren't going to do some amazing quick draw-precision shot to remove the threat. [B]You're likely to fumble, or telegraph your moves, leading to you, you guessed it! Getting your dumb ass shot.[/B][/QUOTE]
Again, you cant use speculation as the basis for an argument. In fact, I'd say you're wrong considering how often concealed weapons are used to stop crimes:
[quote]The vast majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or even wounding an attacker, with government surveys showing 108,000 (NCVS) to 23 million (raw NSPOF) DGUs per year, with ten private national surveys showing 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year.
[url]http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm[/url]
[url]https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf[/url]
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38869292]You really cant use this as a basis for an argument because its just your opinion.
Self defense, collecting, and hobbies are things that a lot of people hold in very high regard, who are you to say what they want to do with their time and money?[/QUOTE]
I certainly don't get the appeal with anime, but I certainly don't go out of my way to tell people they can't enjoy it if they choose to do so.
The mitigating factor here of course is that guns are potentially lethal and anime is not.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38869292]Again, you cant use speculation as the basis for an argument. In fact, I'd say you're wrong considering how often concealed weapons are used to stop crimes:[/QUOTE]
Is this statistic people being held at gunpoint? Or people encountering a crime occurring? Or people in part of a hostage-esque situation where the criminal can't focus on them? Because my thing was quite clearly the gunpoint mugging scenario, unless your statistic is for that, it's useless in the argument.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;38869502]Is this statistic people being held at gunpoint? Or people encountering a crime occurring? Or people in part of a hostage-esque situation where the criminal can't focus on them? Because my thing was quite clearly the gunpoint mugging scenario, unless your statistic is for that, it's useless in the argument.[/QUOTE]
The burden of proof is on you to provide statistics that support your scenario, not me.
Also, I'd like to add, this whole school shooting thing took 3 mins. Only 3 mins to kill 28 people. He wouldn't have been able to cause this much damage if he didn't have access to automatic/semi-automatic guns. Even if a total ban isn't feasible, something needs to be done about semi-automatic rifles.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869040]
The second amendment was written over two centuries ago by people who had only seen shitty guns. Also, Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Back then, american was still the 'new world' and it made sense to let people carry arms. But in this day and age? No, people living in the cities can live without them. [/QUOTE]
Unless the public elects a Congress that can gather enough votes to amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment, guns will never be restricted in this country, ever. You can speculate all you want about what should or shouldn't be but that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd amendment does exist, and is and will be enforced as much as any other amendment.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869546]Also, I'd like to add, this whole school shooting thing took 3 mins. Only 3 mins to kill 28 people. He wouldn't have been able to cause this much damage if he didn't have access to automatic/semi-automatic guns. Even if a total ban isn't feasible, something needs to be done about semi-automatic rifles.[/QUOTE]
No, something needs to be done so that society as a whole is not as violent. Gun legislation is not the end-all be-all solution. Massacres are a culmination of things that, if improved, we would see widespread improvement in all ways of life, not simply a reduction of massacres. (Which I'd like to reiterate are so statistically insignificant.)
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869546]Also, I'd like to add, this whole school shooting thing took 3 mins. Only 3 mins to kill 28 people. He wouldn't have been able to cause this much damage if he didn't have access to automatic/semi-automatic guns. Even if a total ban isn't feasible, something needs to be done about semi-automatic rifles.[/QUOTE]Because he couldn't have done the same damage against defenseless children and staff with just the handguns?
[QUOTE=aydin690;38869546]Also, I'd like to add, this whole school shooting thing took 3 mins. Only 3 mins to kill 28 people. He wouldn't have been able to cause this much damage if he didn't have access to automatic/semi-automatic guns. Even if a total ban isn't feasible, something needs to be done about semi-automatic rifles.[/QUOTE]
I'd fully support a licencing scheme that would make them harder to get or that would require mental health screenings before obtaining them.
Banning them isn't the solution though, there are far too many in legal and illegal circulation for that to make any sense, and it doesn't solve the core issue, Federal AWB type pieces of legislation have been shown in the past to have basically no effect at all.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38869563]Unless the public elects a Congress that can gather enough votes to amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment, guns will never be restricted in this country, ever. You can speculate all you want about what should or shouldn't be but that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd amendment does exist, and is and will be enforced as much as any other amendment.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you'll ever get rid of 2nd amendment, i know that. You guys love your guns way too much. I was just saying people who use the 2nd amendment as an argument to stockpile shit load of guns because 'it's their right' need to realize that when it was written america was still a frontier nation and that piece of legislation was never meant to be in effect as long as it has been without any modifications or restrictions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
