• After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
    853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52743378] Alcohol is intended for a good night out, guns are intended to kill people[/QUOTE] Guns are intended for relaxing target shooting, alcohol is intended to promote violent behavior and risk-taking. Look, I can give made-up purpose to inanimate objects too. (Anyone who makes blanket statements like 'guns are intended to kill people' needs to do some serious homework on shooting sports- not that that purely emotional distinction has any bearing whatsoever on how the product is used or what it can do)
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743414]There are only so many ways to say that I'm not going to be baited into this dumb slippery slope. Whatever my thoughts on cars, alcohol, or any other damn subject are, your motivations behind trying to pull the discussion away from the topic at hand is completely transparent and, frankly, childish. If you want to believe that you've somehow scored a victory in this debate through my refusal to let you run it off the rails, then I suppose I can't stop you.[/QUOTE] it isn't a slippery slope I'm not saying legal action against firearms will lead to legal action against alcohol and is therefor bad I'm literally [I]just[/I] trying to test your argument for logical consistency, which is something you should always do when you're presented with an opposing point of view if I say that we should do absolutely everything possible to wall out illegal immigrants because even one death caused by an illegal immigrant is one too many, but I also think everyone should be able to own whatever guns they want because american values and freedom are more important than lives, that's an inconsistency that [I]should[/I] be pointed out. Because that inconsistency highlights that [I]even I[/I] don't actually believe in my justifications for either policy.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52743335]Oh jee golly, I wouldn't talk about how great education is in Estonia, if its taught you that THAT'S what life state side is like. :v: :v: :v: Literally every Estonian more or less without fail that I've talked to has been an incredibly humble, friendly and decent person, I hope you reflect that a lot better in the real world than you do here, jeez.[/QUOTE] I tend to get heated when people defend things like devices intended to kill people being a right of all people, yeah.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52743419]Those kind of things are more of a social problem than a gun problem. As I elaborated earlier much of the country's gun violence revolvers around gangs and poverty. A good amount of gun violence would be reduced if we were to tackle racial and economic inequality, along with dismantling the gangs through productive measures rather than punitive. But blaming guns is a hell of a lot simpler than solving those deep rooted issues.[/QUOTE] This [I]also[/I] needs to happen. It's not the [I]only[/I] thing that needs to happen. We don't have to address [I]just one[/I] problem. Improving mental healthcare, racial and wealth inequality, and our massive stockpile of firearms would all individually help to lower gun crime. To make gun crime as low as possible, all need to happen, and then some.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743392]From where I stand, there need to considerably stricter limits on place on the capabilities of weapons sold to the public, and a halt of production of all weapons not approved for civilian use and ownership other than those needed for military or law enforcement. This will cut off the supply of [I]new[/I] weapons, or at least severely hamper it as the only "new" weapons will come through illegal operations without [I]nearly[/I] the same economy of scale. In addition to cutting off the supply, we need to reduce the stockpile. Even if we stopped producing weapons right now, there is a [B]colossal[/B] supply of weapons in the US that are available for any nefarious purpose with minimal effort. Since simply knocking on every gun-owner's door in the country and seizing their weapons is effectively impossible, I believe the best way to address the stockpile problem is through a long-term war of attrition. With the sale of any weapons grandfathered in for ownership under the original legislation banned, we can slowly seize unregistered or or illegally traded weapons as they are discovered over the course of regular policing. Combine that with the destruction or seizure of weapons through other methods, such as voluntary gun drives, and the reality that guns need maintenance and care to continue functioning reliably, then the stockpile will gradually (but continuously) deplete over decades. Finally, the availability of weapons is clearly not the [I]only[/I] problem. While it needs to be addressed, we also need to expand efforts on improving the availability, affordability, and effectiveness of mental healthcare. Hell, [I]all[/I] healthcare, really, but that's a different discussion. Reduce the [I]means[/I] for mass shootings, [I]and[/I] the sickness behind the minds of people who commit them through all realistic measures.[/QUOTE] So what does that mean? No more long rifles? What capabilities are you specifically targeting as problematic or unnecessary? Your bit about the sale of grandfathered weapons, I don't understand the phrasing. If you could explain what you mean it would help, I didn't really get it.
Since the fact that I chose to address the haughty and arrogant tone you were taking using sarcasm and quips has been used against me, I'll now address it more directly and impassionately: [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743298] ...sociopathic individualism... Your founding principles (We have to study these at school, lol) you'd realize how stupid guns are and keep them banned. I only insult America and Americans when you deserve it. Or do you think America is incapable of solving the problem? happiness is apparently defined as "loud bang, bullet go, hit tin can in distance, ooga booga" maybe by the time you've finished educating your population Here, you're not right. [/QUOTE] Your two posts towards me have been littered with these snide remarks and insinuations that you know best, Americans are idiots, and everyone should listen to you. Stop. It's not helping you, it's not helping anyone who agrees with you. It makes you come across like an ass. [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743298]Right back at you, looking at your post history, friend.[/QUOTE] Provide examples as to why you think this comment is justified. I don't believe it is. [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743298] Your founding principles ... are separation of church and state, equal rights and a government controlled by checks and balances. There's a reason why your first amendment came first. [/QUOTE] The first amendment and second amendment were both adopted on the very same day, December 15th, 1791. The fact that one single amendment was adopted before it does not delegitimize it. There is no justification to say that it is not a founding principle without also saying that the first amendment is not a founding principle. The fact that people are debating it is one thing, but it has not yet been declared invalid and it still stands. Also, people debate dumb things all the time, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is any depth to the issue. I'm not saying there isn't here, but keep that in mind. [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743298] Because those are the reasons those devices were developed and perfected. [/QUOTE] And? That means they can't be used non-violently? People who collect swords are collecting weapons of war, but no one makes impassioned arguments for banning those. Argue against guns for their effect, not their historical origin. A device's initially conceived use is not its only use. [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743298] The cultural institution of America is (or used to be) a nation where people can be free, to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Instead it's a nation where people are free to worry about if they can make their next healthcare payment or if the twitchy bum across the street has a gun or not. Pursuing liberty now means pursuing what your corporations and lobbies want you to have, and happiness is apparently defined as "loud bang, bullet go, hit tin can in distance, ooga booga" [/QUOTE] You are straw manning and using hyperbole without actually making a point. The "cultural institution" I was referring to was specifically guns. Like it or not, guns have had a profound effect on American culture and I don't believe it to be an inherently bad one. [QUOTE=EcksDee;52743298] Or do you think America is incapable of solving the problem? [/QUOTE] I think we can do it without passing legislation that turns millions of law abiding citizens into criminals without them having done anything.
like ultimately the question of how strict government control of firearms should be is entirely reliant on the ethical question of "how much societal harm are we willing to tolerate in return for people's freedom to do as they please" if we can't settle on some sort of answer for that question, or even [I]begin[/I] discussing it, we couldn't possibly reach a consensus on the question of gun control. without addressing the root of people's disagreement the only thing you can do is just shout at each other over and over again like a bunch of fucking idiots
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52743454]like ultimately the question of how strict government control of firearms should be is entirely reliant on the ethical question of "how much societal harm are we willing to tolerate in return for people's freedom to do as they please" if we can't settle on some sort of answer for that question, or even [I]begin[/I] discussing it, we couldn't possibly reach a consensus on the question of gun control. without addressing the root of people's disagreement the only thing you can do is just shout at each other over and over again like a bunch of fucking idiots[/QUOTE] This. Some people believe safety is worth sacrificing freedom for, some believe that freedom is worth sacrificing safety for. The issue isn't really guns in and of themselves. Obviously total anarchy is not valid, and neither is strict totalitarian control of every citizen. So where's the acceptable middle ground? How much safety do we need? How much freedom do we sacrifice to get it?
There's also a fundamental difference in perspective going on here between Americans and non Americans. To those of is outside the US this problem has a very easy answer, but obviously that doesn't make sense to many of your because we don't apply the same importance to firearms. But I'm starting to get the impression that shootings like this are slowly becoming an accepted downside of having the freedom to have a gun. Like 33k deaths a year or whatever the figure is has become the accepted price to pay for your right to bear arms.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52743427]Guns are intended for relaxing target shooting, alcohol is intended to promote violent behavior and risk-taking. Look, I can give made-up purpose to inanimate objects too. (Anyone who makes blanket statements like 'guns are intended to kill people' needs to do some serious homework on shooting sports- not that that purely emotional distinction has any bearing whatsoever on how the product is used or what it can do)[/QUOTE] There's testable claims though? "Guns are intended for relaxing target shooting" Are they? Gun development and improvement has always been military in nature. Military means combat, combat means finding the best way to kill as many enemies as possible without exposing yourself to harm. This has led to a cheap device that can fire chunks of metal faster than any human can react, over huge distances, for the express purpose of doing as much damage to the enemy in front of it as efficiently and safely as possible. So, guns are [B]INTENDED[/B] to kill people, and guns have a coincidental side function of letting Joe Blow shoot some cans in his backyard or a guy shoot targets at the winter olympics. "alcohol is intended to promote violent behavior and risk-taking." Is it? Earliest usages of alcohol come from ancient China and the Middle East, used in social gatherings and religious rituals, like during memorial ceremonies or when offering sacrifices. [URL="http://www.flavorandfortune.com/dataaccess/article.php?ID=731"]"With the first glass, man drinks jiu; with the second, jiu consumes jiu, and with the third, jiu consumes the man."[/URL] Ancient chinese alcoholic drinks were more often than not in the 5% ABV range, of which three Cups won't do shit to you. So it's intended as a social device, to be used during ceremonies and celebrations, and it has the coincidental side function of people drinking themselves to death. also its 1 am im going to bed lol
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743444]This [I]also[/I] needs to happen. It's not the [I]only[/I] thing that needs to happen. We don't have to address [I]just one[/I] problem. Improving mental healthcare, racial and wealth inequality, and our massive stockpile of firearms would all individually help to lower gun crime. To make gun crime as low as possible, all need to happen, and then some.[/QUOTE] For my own curiosity's sake, what number of gun-related deaths would you be shooting for? (no pun intended) 10,000? 100? 0? Because let's say we solve the actual reason why people are wanting to kill each other in the first place and we dramatically reduce gun deaths without having to restrict firearms, would you still want them banned? Because at that point we would really be talking "Is one life worth X?" In this case, it would be a billion dollar industry and several hundred thousand people's jobs and small businesses on the line. In my opinion, no, it would not be worth it. I don't think it would be worth it if even 1,000 people died a year due to gun-related incidents. At some point you balance personal freedoms with what is best for the greater good. There [I]is[/I] a point where I and many others would say living life with some risk is better than not living it at all and is the reason why I can have my PPL, why Mike can have his Corvette, and why Cliff can drink at the bar and work on his brewery all he wants.
[QUOTE=MR-X;52743406]You're argument makes no sense to me, so alcohol is okay because people doing it are expressing their freedom? Alcohol gets more people killed then guns do, it kills other people too? But it is still okay? So it is okay for a person to get drunk and kill someone via drunk driving because they're expressing their freedom to not only drink and drive (Which both are illegal).[/QUOTE] Of course not. Like I said, drinking and driving needs to go. I suppose when you say alcohol kills other people too, you're referring to people who get drunk and hurt people while drunk. And yes, I agree that is something to consider, but I hope you can at least see that the risk of someone [I]becoming dangerous after drinking alcohol[/I] isn't the same kind of risk as the dangers of people with guns. For example, alcohol doesn't physically increase your ability to cause harm, whereas guns do. I do agree with other posts here that it's worthwhile to consider other issues for perspective and comparison, that's why I'm taking this argument. It isn't an opinion I hold strongly, though, so I also agree with you that this isn't a strong argument. Also have to say that the issue of the 'intended' purpose of guns isn't very precise. The anti-gun side is talking about the [I]original intended purpose[/I], which is to kill, whereas the pro-gun side is talking about [I]people's purposes for guns[/I] which might be target shooting. Isn't it a little irrelevant to talk about guns' original purpose?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52743414]There are only so many ways to say that I'm not going to be baited into this dumb slippery slope. Whatever my thoughts on cars, alcohol, or any other damn subject are, your motivations behind trying to pull the discussion away from the topic at hand are completely transparent and, frankly, childish. If you want to believe that you've somehow scored a victory in this debate through my refusal to let you run it off the rails, then I suppose I can't stop you.[/QUOTE] Okay, let me put it very bluntly: Your attitude towards restricting rights based on misuse is irrational, and this becomes obvious when your logic is divorced from its emotional context and applied to any other comparable situation. If you have an argument that only makes sense to you in isolation and can't be analogized or analyzed, based on logic that you would never follow in any other context, it's an invalid argument. And it can, and rightly should, be dismissed as such. You keep scoffing at the analogy to alcohol but refuse to provide any substantial argument why the analogy is invalid. You clearly think the principle that lives outweigh hobbies is invalid in some contexts, but you refuse to present any reason why it's valid for the context you're giving. I'm not intrinsically opposed to gun control in principle, but you're not giving me any reason to accept your argument as logical. Instead you're acting like expecting basic logical consistency is somehow unreasonable or a trick, and go so far as to call asking you to be consistent as 'childish'. Whatever, dude. If your beliefs are so emotionally driven that you interpret questioning your premise as a personal attack, you've demonstrated the fragility of your position better than I ever could.
this is why it's so hard for me to have any faith in any side of the political spectrum people will shit on republicans all day for being insincere illogical fuckwads but then they'll do the exact same shit they call out republicans for the moment it becomes convenient to do so it's fucking embarassing
What are the main differences between civilian gun ownership in the US vs UK/Canada/Australia? I see a lot of people generally stating that US just needs to legislate like them and we will see much fewer mass shootings. How true is this assumption?
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52743486]There's also a fundamental difference in perspective going on here between Americans and non Americans. To those of is outside the US this problem has a very easy answer, but obviously that doesn't make sense to many of your because we don't apply the same importance to firearms. But I'm starting to get the impression that shootings like this are slowly becoming an accepted downside of having the freedom to have a gun. Like 33k deaths a year or whatever the figure is has become the accepted price to pay for your right to bear arms.[/QUOTE] What a stupid, condescending and insulting way of phrasing it. Americans are aware that mass shootings are horrible, we aren't all complete retards blinded by our shiny guns. The answer is "obvious" to you because you have no skin in the game, you're just bloviating from the comfort of your own country where none of these issues have any effect on you. In reality the answer isn't easy at all: our country was founded on a principle of individual freedom and the power to defend oneself from a tyrannous government, so our right to bear arms is enshrined in our country's constitution. Overwriting that is a massive issue and a change to our country's identity as a whole. We also have hundreds of millions of guns already existing in our country. Even if you ban the sale and manufacture of guns outright and send police to search every house in America to confiscate the guns, you're still going to have millions and millions of guns circulating in the country, and as cliche as it sounds, only criminals will have guns, and law abiding citizens won't be able to defend themselves from home invaders, muggers, kidnappers, etc. We also aren't an island like the glorious UK or Australia, and our neighbor to the south is overrun by a criminal drug cartel that may as well be an independent military force. They manufacture and sell their own guns and traffic them from around the globe, so inevitably some will make their way to America, especially in the vacuum caused by a total lack of legal gun sales in America. Not that it matters, because we already have American gangs and private citizens that can manufacture their own guns. I'm so tired of this pretentious narrative that Americans are just brainwashed by gun culture, too stupid to comprehend the brilliant Europeans and their plan to magically fix violence in a country of 300 million people.
[QUOTE=ThePanther;52743533]What are the main differences between civilian gun ownership in the US vs UK/Canada/Australia? I see a lot of people generally stating that US just needs to legislate like them and we will see much fewer mass shootings. How true is this assumption?[/QUOTE] In the United States, there's no universal need for licenses to own/carry firearms. Florida I believe has "constitutional carry", in which any person 18 or older can purchase a firearm (provided they pass a background check) and carry it openly (as in over the shoulder or holstered) without the need for papers. Whereas in MA, you need to apply for a license just to purchase guns, nevermind carrying them in public. In the UK, ownership of any firearm is heavily regulated everywhere and usually (not sure if UK but definately Germany) requires a "clear, reasonable purpose" for ownership such as sport, work (armed security) or self-defense (which is hard to prove/justify). I believe handguns are entirely banned except for law enforcement/military, and self loading guns with >10 magazines are hard to get a hold of. I personally don't believe that legislation will solve this "epidemic" of mass shootings (especially one of this nature). A man with no record with an expensive gun collection decides to immortalize himself by taking nearly 60 people with him to the grave; the ATF can't predict the future when doing a background check on a guy without a noteworthy background. Guns are too ingrained in our culture (and physically present) and protected in the sacred Bill of Rights to make a mass-seizure, forfeiture or ban of them practical, possible or democratic.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52743486]There's also a fundamental difference in perspective going on here between Americans and non Americans. To those of is outside the US this problem has a very easy answer, but obviously that doesn't make sense to many of your because we don't apply the same importance to firearms. But I'm starting to get the impression that shootings like this are slowly becoming an accepted downside of having the freedom to have a gun. Like 33k deaths a year or whatever the figure is has become the accepted price to pay for your right to bear arms.[/QUOTE] The entire reason the US has the second amendment is to provide a check on the government in case they become tyrannical. Look at Venezuela, Syria, or China for an example of why the second amendment is needed. Other governments are willing to deploy paramilitary forces against their own people if they want to but the American government cannot because of the fear of an insurgency. [QUOTE]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE] The second amendment does not mention sport shooting or hunting or whatever because the founding fathers understood that the people need to be armed in order to prevent any possible government tyranny. More people die in car crashes and of alcohol poisoning than are killed by guns in the US. Of those who are killed by guns, roughly 2/3s of those people were committing suicide.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52743099]What point is this supposed to make? "An insane person without guns would go and make a low rate of fire loud piece of shit that would most likely jam" Funny how they haven't, right? The London knife/van terrorists had several perpetrators, they could have spent a week making guns but they didn't.[/QUOTE] Fuck, they could probably pick up some questionable quality named brand pistols from the black market. Or grab the numerous shotguns available throughout the country. Or sporting rifles. Or pretty much any .22lr semi-auto (yeah it's a tiny baby bullet, but it's still potentially lethal). There are plenty of guns that you can get in the UK through both legal and not so legal means. But our terrorist attacks generally don't use them because we managed to burn up most of the stockpile after our major firearms bans. And as a result they are either prohibitively expensive (both legal and illegal), require a fair bit of work to apply for (legal), or require you to know some very specific people (illegal). We still have gun crime, but it's statistically nothing.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52743429]it isn't a slippery slope[/QUOTE] It can be a slippery slope considering the Second Amendment is enshrined on the same wall that protects our speech, media, and privacy. And privacy is already under constant threat. The point is if you take one down, you've shown that it can be done, and it's possible to take down the others too. Unreasonable search and seizures? Imagine how often we can stop these shooting attacks if we could just raid any home at the slightest hint of disturbance.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52743488]There's testable claims though? "Guns are intended for relaxing target shooting" Are they? Gun development and improvement has always been military in nature. Military means combat, combat means finding the best way to kill as many enemies as possible without exposing yourself to harm. This has led to a cheap device that can fire chunks of metal faster than any human can react, over huge distances, for the express purpose of doing as much damage to the enemy in front of it as efficiently and safely as possible. So, guns are [B]INTENDED[/B] to kill people, and guns have a coincidental side function of letting Joe Blow shoot some cans in his backyard or a guy shoot targets at the winter olympics. "alcohol is intended to promote violent behavior and risk-taking." Is it? Earliest usages of alcohol come from ancient China and the Middle East, used in social gatherings and religious rituals, like during memorial ceremonies or when offering sacrifices. [URL="http://www.flavorandfortune.com/dataaccess/article.php?ID=731"]"With the first glass, man drinks jiu; with the second, jiu consumes jiu, and with the third, jiu consumes the man."[/URL] Ancient chinese alcoholic drinks were more often than not in the 5% ABV range, of which three Cups won't do shit to you. So it's intended as a social device, to be used during ceremonies and celebrations, and it has the coincidental side function of people drinking themselves to death. also its 1 am im going to bed lol[/QUOTE] I've got more than a half a dozen firearms in my safe (not even as big as my collection has been historically) and only two of them have been used to kill, in both cases actual fascists, to liberate Europe.
I don't think we need to ban guns or destroy an industry to bring gun crime near zero. I don't think completely ending gun crime in the US is a realistic goal at this time. There will be incidents even when you think you have it under control simply because we got a shitload of guns and you're not going to change that without causing civil unrest.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52743217]your argument is built on the premise that certain freedoms should be withheld when they result in a certain level of harm to the general population I'm trying to more thoroughly establish at what point you think something becomes too harmful for society, and alcohol is the most apt and direct comparison I can think of.[/QUOTE] Or that society has to give care on deciding what tools are available to which people
[QUOTE=Ridge;52742047]Firearms are seen as an investment by many people. They devalue pretty slowly under calm conditions, and jump in price drastically during troubling times.[/QUOTE] So it's like a Stock Market for tragedy. Fucking ace, man.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52743801]So it's like a Stock Market for tragedy. Fucking ace, man.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I'm a gun owner and know dozens of other gun owners. We don't look at guns as investments, they're merely tools or hobbyist things. There are people who do collect rare firearms and they know they're worth a lot, but that is entirely different. They're collectors and rarely will sell a collectable. They don't wait for a horrible incident to happen so they can sell their rare mp-44 for big bucks. The reason prices skyrocket is because people panic buy, they think guns or accessories are going to be banned. To even consider a gun and sit on it in hopes of it being a investment is kinda sickening to me and honestly anyone who says it is puts responsible gun-owners in bad light. Like everything else our items deprecate and that doesn't matter...because it is a hobby. There are a lot of people that honestly believe they're going to lose their 2nd amendment right at some point in time and because of that they often stockpile ammo and collect a wide arrange of firearms. But like anything else there are people who are predatory and will jack up the prices of guns because they know they can when events like this happen.
Is there any way to increase the challenge of being allowed to purchase guns and explosives as well as make a requirement of having to renew said license on a more regular basis? Perhaps it'd be a country wide goal with states making their own goals in an attempt to combat future uses of guns? Also in the process of getting a license, perhaps there should also be an interview process in being allow to have such a license in order to check the past of those who are looking to be able to wield a firearm? The overall goal would be less an all out ban, but instead a stricter regulation on being able to purchase firearms. Obviously there are going to be "unofficial" sellers, and collectors can keep secret, but those conflicts could be met with discussion of a goal to regulate distribution in order to lower violence further. It kind of reminds me of increasing the challenge of getting on a plane after 9/11, as in increasing security and lowering chances of events while also making more conflicts. It's surely a tricky puzzle with multiple ways to go about it.
[QUOTE=Exploders;52742107]If I can't buy a gun legally and I want to cause a mass shooting, I'll just buy a gun(ammo included) illegally that will fund gunrunning, and allow said gunrunners to acquire more guns, that they can illegally sell to others, and continuously fund a cycle of death.[/QUOTE] As opposed to the government allowing you to just walk into any gun store and say "Yeah I'd like the AK and a bump-stock pls" and being perfectly A-OK with it. Which is worse: Having to illegally buy a weapon to commit mass-murder, or being able to buy said weapon legally? 'Cause last I checked it's at least a [i]little[/i] tougher to buy ammonium nitrate after the OKC bombing. [QUOTE=AnnieOakley;52743830]Is there any way to increase the challenge of being allowed to purchase guns and explosives as well as make a requirement of having to renew said license on a more regular basis? Perhaps it'd be a country wide goal with states making their own goals in an attempt to combat future uses of guns? Also in the process of getting a license, perhaps there should also be an interview process in being allow to have such a license in order to check the past of those who are looking to be able to wield a firearm? The overall goal would be less an all out ban, but instead a stricter regulation on being able to purchase firearms. Obviously there are going to be "unofficial" sellers, and collectors can keep secret, but those conflicts could be met with discussion of a goal to regulate distribution in order to lower violence further. It kind of reminds me of increasing the challenge of getting on a plane after 9/11, as in increasing security and lowering chances of events while also making more conflicts. It's surely a tricky puzzle with multiple ways to go about it.[/QUOTE] Nope. Because the moment you cause any perceivable delay in purchasing a fire-arm, they rant and scream about how you're denying them a Constitutional right.
[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;52743830]Is there any way to increase the challenge of being allowed to purchase guns and explosives as well as make a requirement of having to renew said license on a more regular basis? Perhaps it'd be a country wide goal with states making their own goals in an attempt to combat future uses of guns? Also in the process of getting a license, perhaps there should also be an interview process in being allow to have such a license in order to check the past of those who are looking to be able to wield a firearm? The overall goal would be less an all out ban, but instead a stricter regulation on being able to purchase firearms. Obviously there are going to be "unofficial" sellers, and collectors can keep secret, but those conflicts could be met with discussion of a goal to regulate distribution in order to lower violence further.[/QUOTE] I personally have no issues with that. Make it a process and you have to get a licenses renewed regularly. Sadly though, this person who has millions of dollars and no history would have passed even with stricter requirements. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;52743835]As opposed to the government allowing you to just walk into any gun store and say "Yeah I'd like the AK and a bump-stock pls" and being perfectly A-OK with it. Which is worse: Having to illegally buy a weapon to commit mass-murder, or being able to buy said weapon legally? 'Cause last I checked it's at least a [i]little[/i] tougher to buy ammonium nitrate after the OKC bombing.[/QUOTE] Both are equally bad, but the issue is that ammonium nitrate isn't covered in the constitution...
[QUOTE=MR-X;52743840] Both are equally bad, but the issue is that ammonium nitrate isn't covered in the constitution...[/QUOTE] It can be used to make bombs. Bombs are arms. What business does the government have in telling me how I can and can't protect myself from tyranny?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742669]Yes, magazine fed "automatic" pistols are responsible for most on-the-street violence. They should be banned.[/QUOTE] If you're going to ban handguns, ban all handguns. Not just self-loaders. Otherwise, criminals will just go back to revolvers, and we'll still have problems. Do it right, or don't do it at all. A handgun ban has about as much chance of happening as I do of going to space anyway. Washington couldn't get it done when 60% of the country was in favor of a handgun ban, gun regulation was a bi-partisan issue, and the NRA supported gun control bills. [URL="http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx"]Support for a ban is down to less than 30% now[/URL], and I don't need to tell you how contentious the debate's gotten over the last ~40 years.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.