Hawaii becomes first U.S. state to place gun owners on FBI database - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;50602086]Put it this way, what if we put everyone who participates in protests against government polices into a FBI database.[/QUOTE] So what? They can categorise you based on your browsing habits, your reactions on social media, as well as by weight, by height, by eye color even. adding guns into the mix is just scare mongering by the rightist parts of america.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602090] it could be gun free and be kept gun free.[/QUOTE] Except this clearly is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment and you can argue that Hawaii is "culturally different" all you please but it's still a US state and follows the American Bill of Rights.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50601850][url]http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0ZA3IP[/url] Glad to see that some action is FINALLY being taken.[/QUOTE] FINALLY a list of law-abiding citizens who own guns. At least now when someone murders somebody with a gun, we'll.. Have a list of people who own guns? What problem do you think this solves, exactly?

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602079]while this does go a bit far, saying that the founding fathers wanted to make sure we had access to weapons on account of these things currently happening is akin to saying darwin wanted access to knowledge of evolution so we could find out there are parallel universes. Every single time a thread like this pops up you are on here saying it infringes on the rights of the common american because of "What the founding fathers intended" but neglect to realise in 1775-76 they had access to cannon and musket, not assault rifles and semi-automatics. Truth is in nowhere did every single founding father say that everyone should have access to guns to violently overthrow their government based on tyranny. in fact that is the exact opposite of what they intended by a "peaceful revolution." as an added state/federal rights level, you consistently say that states should have more power over regulation in certain terms, but when it comes to the issue of guns and state's rights, it's suddenly a non-issue. Truth be told we cannot know what the founding fathers [I]intended[/I] but we can know what they didn't intend, and that is for massacres and mass shootings to happen on a nearly daily basis. To do nothing is a perversion on the tenants of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and to do something, and issue of the "rights" of citizens.[/QUOTE] Interestingly someone like you is always right along to say [quote]neglect to realise in 1775-76 they had access to cannon and musket, not assault rifles and semi-automatics.[/quote] which is patently false anyway but also assumes they were dumb enough to think firearms technology would stop developing at cannons and muskets. In short it's an ignorant statement. It's also ignorant to assume that the legality of firearms is solely responsible for our problems with crime, considering many other nations with legal firearms, some of which regulate them much less than the US, do not have these problems. Also; Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote. No, I'm not saying a violent revolution would be a good thing, but we're at a point where the government needs to step the fuck back.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50602091]"The founding fathers were clearly too stupid to understand the concept of technological innovation and growth with weapons despite a couple centuries prior man was fighting with swords instead of guns"[/QUOTE] "The founding fathers were omnipotent and all knowing, knowing that the first machine guns would be used only 200 years later and that the people should have semi-automatics as well, when they didn't exist for nearly 100 years after"

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602106]"The founding fathers were omnipotent and all knowing, knowing that the first machine guns would be used only 200 years later and that the people should have semi-automatics as well, when they didn't exist for nearly 100 years after"[/QUOTE] Repeating arms were already in use when the United States was founded, so you are wrong

please note that the Puckle Gun and Girandoni Air Rifle both existed in the time of the Founding Fathers (in fact, the Girandoni Air Rifle was used by some units in the Austrian military, one of the leading nations of the era) and gave the Founding Fathers a glimpse of the future of Firearms.

[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50601916]Isn't crime really fucking low in Hawaii? This is unecessary as fuck lol. Last mass shooting in Hawaii was Xerox in 1999.[/QUOTE] if not having a mass shooting makes you think that crime is low, then yeah i guess crime is low here in actuality there are crimes every now and then but a very small part of them involves guns

It's funny seeing everyone get up in arms about this (pun intended), yet this is a norm pretty much in every other developed country in the world (gun owners tracked by the government), of which many of those countries are recognised as more-free than the US.

How about this: Don't make guns illegal, however mental health checkups and licenses should be required to own a gun! Just like what a lot of other countries do. You can keep yer gerns and mass shootings would be more rare, No wait that would never work because it makes sense and everybody wins... We gotta have an us vs them with pro and anti gun people.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602103]Interestingly someone like you is always right along to say which is patently false anyway but also assumes they were dumb enough to think firearms technology would stop developing at cannons and muskets. In short it's an ignorant statement. It's also ignorant to assume that the legality of firearms is solely responsible for our problems with crime, considering many other nations with legal firearms, some of which regulate them much less than the US, do not have these problems. Also; Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote. No, I'm not saying a violent revolution would be a good thing, but we're at a point where the government needs to step the fuck back.[/QUOTE] So you're advocating support of a violent revolution to serve your own interests as a gun owner. that sounds awfully terroristic in that sense. You say it's false, but you assume that they [I]did[/I] know that they would evolve past cannon and musket. You have patently false statements about the prevalence of guns and the relation to gun crime, as well. More guns means more access to guns, which means more stolen guns which means higher crime rate with guns. You have to be missing a huge picture here to not see that. You say that many other nations with legal firearms, which regulate much less are safer? did you know that not a single country in the world can match our amount of guns per person?

[QUOTE=sb27;50602125]It's funny seeing everyone get up in arms about this (pun intended), yet this is a norm pretty much in every other developed country in the world, of which many of those countries are recognised as more-free than the US.[/QUOTE] I don't understand what it is with you people and literally flat out denying hard facts Guns are legal and even less-regulated in many, many other first-world countries and those nations do not have the problems with crime that the US has

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602110]Repeating arms were already in use when the United States was founded, so you are wrong[/QUOTE] Repeating arms are a lot different than a semi-automatic.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602128]So you're advocating support of a violent revolution to serve your own interests as a gun owner. that sounds awfully terroristic in that sense. You say it's false, but you assume that they [I]did[/I] know that they would evolve past cannon and musket. You have patently false statements about the prevalence of guns and the relation to gun crime, as well. More guns means more access to guns, which means more stolen guns which means higher crime rate with guns. You have to be missing a huge picture here to not see that. You say that many other nations with legal firearms, which regulate much less are safer? did you know that not a single country in the world can match our amount of guns per person?[/QUOTE] This post is fucking incoherent

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50602127]How about this: Don't make guns illegal, however mental health checkups and licenses should be required to own a gun! Just like what a lot of other countries do. You can keep yer gerns and mass shootings would be more rare, No wait that would never work because it makes sense and everybody wins... We gotta have an us vs them with pro and anti gun people.[/QUOTE] What the article talks about fits within the second amendment. Licensing doesn't. The second amendment would have to be repealed and I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602129]I don't understand what it is with you people and literally flat out denying hard facts Guns are legal and even less-regulated in many, many other first-world countries and those nations do not have the problems with crime that the US has[/QUOTE] Because they don't have the same amount of guns per person as are available in the USA.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602139]Because they don't have the same amount of guns per person as are available in the USA.[/QUOTE] That makes literally no difference, I have 13 guns, does that mean I'm 13x more likely to commit a crime? No it fucking doesn't Did you know we also have more American bison than anywhere else in the world? SHOCKER. You're throwing out statistics without linking them to any effect. More guns doesn't mean more gun crime; the statistics in other nations [B]don't support this[/B].

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602145]That makes literally no difference, I have 13 guns, does that mean I'm 13x more likely to commit a crime? No it fucking doesn't[/QUOTE] [url]https://top5ofanything.com/list/de09aa45/Countries-with-the-Most-Guns-(firearms)-Per-Capita[/url] If your argument were true, that if higher access to guns leads to less crime, then we would have the lowest crime rates in the world.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602129]I don't understand what it is with you people and literally flat out denying hard facts Guns are legal and even less-regulated in many, many other first-world countries and those nations do not have the problems with crime that the US has[/QUOTE] What countries? All I can think of is Switzerland, but even then they abide by EU gun control requirements. [quote]The Swiss Weapons Act requires an acquisition license for handguns and a carrying license for the carrying of any permitted firearm for defensive purposes. Exceptions exist for hunters. Automatic weapons are banned.[/quote] [url]https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php[/url]

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602150][url]https://top5ofanything.com/list/de09aa45/Countries-with-the-Most-Guns-(firearms)-Per-Capita[/url] If your argument were true, that if higher access to guns leads to less crime, then we would have the lowest crime rates in the world.[/QUOTE] Where did I posit that as an argument? Nowhere. I'm saying there's no connection at all. Crime rates are fully irrelevant to firearms ownership.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602155]Not really. Semi-automatic means 1 bullet per trigger pull. Repeating arm means a weapon that can be use multiple times before reloading. They're one and the same really.[/QUOTE] This is arguing sematics, Repeating arms is different than a semi-automatic rifle. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602160]Where did I posit that as an argument? Nowhere. I'm saying there's no connection at all. Crime rates are fully irrelevant to firearms ownership.[/QUOTE] Except that we have the highest amount of guns per person in the world yet have the most amounts of gun crime also, which is correlative to each other, so this statement is false.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602164]This is arguing sematics, Repeating arms is different than a semi-automatic rifle.[/QUOTE] You can't win an argument by dismissing opposing viewpoints You don't know what you're talking about and you're literally furiously ripping bullshit out of your ass to try and prop up a baseless anti-gun viewpoint, including actually making up facts which are easily proven wrong, inventing statistics, and pretending people you're arguing with are saying things they aren't Give up [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602164]Except that we have the highest amount of guns per person in the world yet have the most amounts of gun crime also, which is correlative to each other, so this statement is false.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/pCPrUZW.jpg[/img]

50 Guns in the hands of a non-criminal are safer than one gun in the hand of a criminal. The number of Guns means nothing. The intent means everything.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602172]You can't win an argument by dismissing opposing viewpoints You don't know what you're talking about and you're literally furiously ripping bullshit out of your ass to try and prop up a baseless anti-gun viewpoint, including actually making up facts which are easily proven wrong, inventing statistics, and pretending people you're arguing with are saying things they aren't Give up[/QUOTE] Give up because you're becoming frustrated. Right. I'm ripping up bullshit out of my ass. Right. [url]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/[/url] Harvard itself says that guns correlate with more gun crime The wikipedia article says that the first semi-automatic rifle was designed in 1885 [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm[/url] If anyone here is moving the goalposts, it's you to support your pro-gun rhetoric.

[QUOTE=sb27;50602159]What countries? All I can think of is Switzerland, but even then they abide by EU gun control requirements. [url]https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php[/url][/QUOTE] I didn't say fucking anything about switzerland Try Norway, where you can own automatics Italy, Czech Republic, there's lots I'm not going to go down the list for you, google it, where you can own firearms is irrelevant, the point is many of these places don't have an associated crime rate

[QUOTE=OvB;50602182]50 Guns in the hands of a non-criminal are safer than one gun in the hand of a criminal. The number of Guns means nothing. The intent means everything.[/QUOTE] 50 guns in the hands of a law abiding citizen can turn into 50 guns missing from a law abiding citizen as well. all of which end up being sold by those that stole them to those who use them for a crime.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602079]Every single time a thread like this pops up you are on here saying it infringes on the rights of the common american because of "What the founding fathers intended" but neglect to realise in 1775-76 they had access to cannon and musket, not assault rifles and semi-automatics.[/QUOTE] The founding fathers only had access to a common 1700's printing press, therefore you're right to call the President a cunt on twitter is not protected under the 1st Amendment. Better break out the presses if you got a dissenting view. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602189]50 guns in the hands of a law abiding citizen can turn into 50 guns missing from a law abiding citizen as well. all of which end up being sold by those that stole them to those who use them for a crime.[/QUOTE] Only because someone intent on doing crime stole them. You're treating a symptom and not the illness.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602189]50 guns in the hands of a law abiding citizen can turn into 50 guns missing from a law abiding citizen as well. all of which end up being sold by those that stole them to those who use them for a crime.[/QUOTE] This isn't an argument to ban guns, it's an argument to address poverty and other issues that actually have a firm correlation with the intent to commit crime You are so shortsighted I cannot believe it

[QUOTE=OvB;50602190]The founding fathers only had access to a common 1700's printing press, therefore you're right to call the President a cunt on twitter is not protected under the 1st Amendment. Better break out the presses if you got a dissenting view. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] Only because someone intent on doing crime stole them.[/QUOTE] And that intent of the owner of the gun therefore changes. And your correlation of the first amendment makes no sense. First amendment protects speech, not the method therein, but to say that the founding fathers had the intent for me to call the president a cunt on twitter is wrong because you can't know what exactly they meant. same with the second amendment.

Most gun related deaths are suicides, not murders. So it's better to address mental health in the US than gun rights.