Democrats begin filibuster for Universal Background Checks - Polidicks

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;50527744]Okay but a spoon and chainsaw weren't created for the purpose of humans and other animals.[/QUOTE] A cowbell wasn't originally created for the purpose of being a musical instrument either, but people use things for different purposes and reasons.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527706]it's easier to murder someone with a chainsaw than with a teaspoon, we haven't banned chainsaws because like guns they have many other valid, legal and morally acceptable applications[/QUOTE] The difference is that guns (outside of hunting, of course) shouldn't be necessary for living & working, although I understand how it actually may be in some parts of the US due to crime rates. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527706]people who are motivated to commit crimes will commit them with or without guns. they key is to minimize that impulse while maximizing liberties for everyone who is on the right side of the law. clearly guns can be legal and plentiful without an associated crime epidemic, so a gun ban is a heavy handed "solution" that only affects people who were going to follow the law anyway. killers will still kill - if they can illegally acquire a gun (and they will be able to) they will use that; if not they will use a knife or a car or a hammer or a bomb.[/QUOTE] This is a common argument that is hard to refute, because it's hypothetical and tough to test. Fact is that we don't know how the US would change if all guns magically disappeared. [QUOTE=CrimsonChin;50527744]Aren't they required to be locked in a safe at all times unless obviously when being used? Or am I thinking another country here..[/QUOTE] Yeah you're required to have a gun locker. Just to make it perfectly clear, guns in Norway are NOT for self defense, and you'll not be having a good time in court if you use them that way. (although I'm a bit unsure about how exactly it works)

[QUOTE=paul simon;50527738]Just a quick correction, it's [I]per 100 person[/I]. Still pretty high, ranking as the 10'th country in guns per capita.[/QUOTE] oops, you're correct - i misread it [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=paul simon;50527781]The difference is that guns (outside of hunting, of course) shouldn't be necessary for living & working, although I understand how it actually may be in some parts of the US due to crime rates. This is a common argument that is hard to refute, because it's hypothetical and tough to test. Fact is that we don't know how the US would change if all guns magically disappeared.[/QUOTE] we know that other countries that once had similar ownership rates to the US and then banned firearms still have comparable violent crime rates, so from that we can figure it probably won't do the US much good either and i'm not sure it's worth melting down the hundreds of years worth of history that i own just to find out as for guns being necessary - i don't think we should decide whether or not people are allowed to have things based on necessity. we aren't the soviet union, it's OK to own things because you think they are neat and fun if you aren't harming other people with them. the obvious exception would be things that actually do have the potential to spontaneously kill lots of people, like bombs.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527706]of course they make it easier to do those things it's easier to murder someone with a chainsaw than with a teaspoon, we haven't banned chainsaws because like guns they have many other valid, legal and morally acceptable applications people who are motivated to commit crimes will commit them with or without guns. they key is to minimize that impulse while maximizing liberties for everyone who is on the right side of the law. clearly guns can be legal and plentiful without an associated crime epidemic, so a gun ban is a heavy handed "solution" that only affects people who were going to follow the law anyway. killers will still kill - if they can illegally acquire a gun (and they will be able to) they will use that; if not they will use a knife or a car or a hammer or a bomb. maybe with different tools they will be less successful, but i don't see how that's [I]really[/I] an improvement, because they will still be motivated to commit crimes by other factors and may or may not succeed. by and large the impulse to commit crimes can be addressed and then there's no reason to take away things that they could use to commit them with from people who wouldn't have committed crimes anyway.[/QUOTE] What other valid applications do guns have? Sport? I dont really consider fun and play to be something particularly important enough to consider. Hunting is not "morally acceptable" so knock that one out too.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50527769]A cowbell wasn't originally created for the purpose of being a musical instrument either, but people use things for different purposes and reasons.[/QUOTE] Right but guns were exclusively made to kill shit unlike a chainsaw or a cowbell. Something that was made with the express purpose of ending life and being reallllly good at it needs strict regulation in my opinion.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50527781]The difference is that guns (outside of hunting, of course) shouldn't be necessary for living & working, although I understand how it actually may be in some parts of the US due to crime rates.[/QUOTE] good thing it doesn't say "you only have the right to have this if you need it" then

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50527799]What other valid applications do guns have? Sport? I dont really consider fun and play to be something particularly important enough to consider. Hunting is not "morally acceptable" so knock that one out too.[/QUOTE] i don't hunt but it absolutely is morally acceptable if you live in an area where you need to hunt to get food and be alive lol sport is a valid application. you can't ban football just because you don't think it isn't fun. historical interest is a valid application (most of mine are antique, some are even super antique). self defense is a valid application.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527784] the obvious exception would be things that actually do have the potential to spontaneously kill lots of people, like bombs.[/QUOTE] Guns also have this potential, I mean 50+ people were just spontaneously murdered in a single attack. If this is the logic you're going with then I dont see why guns are an exception to your rule.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50527800]Right but guns were exclusively made to kill shit unlike a chainsaw or a cowbell. Something that was made with the express purpose of ending life and being reallllly good at it needs strict regulation in my opinion.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/dlOj2y1.jpg[/img] this gun was made exclusively to shoot targets from a bench in marksmanship contests it's mechanically identical to the military style assault weapons that keep you up at night

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50527799]What other valid applications do guns have? Sport? I dont really consider fun and play to be something particularly important enough to consider. Hunting is not "morally acceptable" so knock that one out too.[/QUOTE] I consider those the most valid applications for guns.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527806]i don't hunt but it absolutely is morally acceptable if you live in an area where you need to hunt to get food and be alive lol sport is a valid application. you can't ban football just because you don't think it isn't fun. historical interest is a valid application (most of mine are antique, some are even super antique). self defense is a valid application.[/QUOTE] Well I meant hunting for sport as that's what theyre typically used for. I dont think people shoot deer so that they can eat. And sport isn't a really valid reason to keep guns legal if that was the only thing keeping them legal, its a tertiary interest in a society that comes far after the health and safety of the people. I think shooting is fun but if I had to give it up so save a single life I would instantly.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50527809]Guns also have this potential, I mean 50+ people were just spontaneously murdered in a single attack. If this is the logic you're going with then I dont see why guns are an exception to your rule.[/QUOTE] i own 13 guns and none of them have spontaneously jumped up and murdered 50 people yet bombs on the other hand can degrade over time causing them to detonate spontaneously, shift and fall and detonate, are prone to going off if minorly mishandled and are capable of killing many more than one person in that case [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;50527817]Well I meant hunting for sport as that's what theyre typically used for. I dont think people shoot deer so that they can eat. And sport isn't a really valid reason to keep guns legal if that was the only thing keeping them legal, its a tertiary interest in a society that comes far after the health and safety of the people.[/QUOTE] even sport hunters mostly eat what they hunt sport (including target shooting, which is what i use mine for as well as the nice feeling of maintaining a piece of history) is a perfectly valid reason to keep guns legal because guns alone do not create a dangerous condition, they need to be in the hands of a criminal (or a huge idiot) in order to become a health and safety risk addressing issues like poverty, education and mental health cuts crime way down. taking away guns causes crime to be committed with other things.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527820]i own 13 guns and none of them have spontaneously jumped up and murdered 50 people yet bombs on the other hand can degrade over time causing them to detonate spontaneously, shift and fall and detonate, are prone to going off if minorly mishandled and are capable of killing many more than one person in that case [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] even sport hunters mostly eat what they hunt sport is a perfectly valid reason to keep guns legal because guns alone do not create a dangerous condition, they need to be in the hands of a criminal (or a huge idiot) in order to become a health and safety risk addressing issues like poverty, education and mental health cuts crime way down. taking away guns causes crime to be committed with other things.[/QUOTE] Are bombs legal?

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;50527838]Good thing bombs are illegal then.[/QUOTE] yes, they are, that's what i said and why i used them in an argument. bombs are generally illegal because they can spontaneously detonate. guns cannot, so they are legal. because bombs unlike guns can spontaneously detonate and kill and wound many many people. guns do not have this ability. although some very stable binary explosives like tannerite are legal and you can get permits for tnt and rdx

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527820]i own 13 guns and none of them have spontaneously jumped up and murdered 50 people yet bombs on the other hand can degrade over time causing them to detonate spontaneously, shift and fall and detonate, are prone to going off if minorly mishandled and are capable of killing many more than one person in that case[/QUOTE] I feel as if you're being obtuse on this one, of course the gun isn't just going to murder people on it's own. It has potential to be a very dangerous weapon that is easily available, easy to use, and highly lethal. Do you think that if bombs didn't degrade over time that they would be legal and widely available?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50527848]I feel as if you're being obtuse on this one, of course the gun isn't just going to murder people on it's own. It has potential to be a very dangerous weapon that is easily available, easy to use, and highly lethal. Do you think that if bombs didn't degrade over time that they would be legal and widely available?[/QUOTE] well yes because bombs that don't degrade over time actually are legal and widely available. i can buy tannerite at the hardware store.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50527284]So let me get this straight, the purpose behind this move is to deny [i]suspected[/i] criminals constitutional rights? Why do I feel like this is a bad idea?[/QUOTE] This isn't as willy nilly as it seems to be honest. It's just preventing people on the [I]FBI watchlist[/I] from buying firearms, so unless a law-abiding citizen is doing some really sketchy shit that they cannot explain or defend, then I doubt they're going to get their constitutional rights swiped from right under them.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527820]i own 13 guns and none of them have spontaneously jumped up and murdered 50 people yet bombs on the other hand can degrade over time causing them to detonate spontaneously, shift and fall and detonate, are prone to going off if minorly mishandled and are capable of killing many more than one person in that case [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] even sport hunters mostly eat what they hunt sport (including target shooting, which is what i use mine for as well as the nice feeling of maintaining a piece of history) is a perfectly valid reason to keep guns legal because guns alone do not create a dangerous condition, they need to be in the hands of a criminal (or a huge idiot) in order to become a health and safety risk addressing issues like poverty, education and mental health cuts crime way down. taking away guns causes crime to be committed with other things.[/QUOTE] If crime was committed with other things then the death count for those crimes would be much lower.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50527868]If crime was committed with other things then the death count for those crimes would be much lower.[/QUOTE] or you could address the problems that cause crimes to be committed in the first place and then the death count would be zero and it wouldn't matter if guns were illegal imagine that but that's kinda hard so first we'll exhaust every possible scapegoat and then we'll begrudgingly deal with the real issues

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527855]well yes because bombs that don't degrade over time actually are legal and widely available. i can buy tannerite at the hardware store.[/QUOTE] Fair enough then, I should've fact checked that.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/aGdDOJI.jpg[/img] look at this military style assault transport, i cant believe these are available to civilians

You also fuck over the hundreds of people everyday that preserve their lives and defend their property with firearms. I fall into that category. The one time I needed a gun I was glad to have it. Just because you have no interest in firearms and you think you know what is best for society doesn't mean you can suspend our constitutional right to possess firearms or restrict them into obscurity. It's easy to be on the other side of this but you'd be upset if we tried to ban things you were passionate about or used for your livelihood.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50527856]This isn't as willy nilly as it seems to be honest. It's just preventing people on the [I]FBI watchlist[/I] from buying firearms, so unless a law-abiding citizen is doing some really sketchy shit that they cannot explain or defend, then I doubt they're going to get their constitutional rights swiped from right under them.[/QUOTE] So I should just trust this government agency of which I have no way of knowing its internal processes to not take this power and abuse it? A lot of people are of the opinion that the government and its agencies are corrupt. A lot of the same people will then say it's okay just this one time, we can trust the government to not be corrupt just this one time. I'm not saying you're implying this, mind you, I'm just throwing it out there.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50527886]Fair enough then, I should've fact checked that.[/QUOTE] whether you think that should be the case or not is a different subject but as far as i know next to no crime is committed with tannerite despite its explosive potential so yeah to me it's fairly clear that the issue isn't that guns are making people commit crimes so banning guns makes no more sense than banning the bags criminals hide them in. we should be focusing on addressing the impulse to commit crimes but because that's a difficult process lawmakers would rather put it off and make a big deal out of any little scapegoat they can find. guns? check. islam? check. the real problems are plain to see if you've ever lived in a high crime area.

The argument that guns must not be banned because then people couldn't go shoot targets for fun is silly. There are plenty of ways to shoot targets without actual guns. Some ideas off the top of my head are VR, a fake gun with some hydraulic pistons to recreate recoil and maybe headphones for sound and lcd screen 'targets' that show bulletholes where you 'shot', airsoft/paintball guns and more.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50527856]This isn't as willy nilly as it seems to be honest. It's just preventing people on the [I]FBI watchlist[/I] from buying firearms, so unless a law-abiding citizen is doing some really sketchy shit that they cannot explain or defend, then I doubt they're going to get their constitutional rights swiped from right under them.[/QUOTE] That still violates due process.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527873]or you could address the problems that cause crimes to be committed in the first place and then the death count would be zero and it wouldn't matter if guns were illegal imagine that but that's kinda hard so first we'll exhaust every possible scapegoat and then we'll begrudgingly deal with the real issues[/QUOTE] Theoretically, is there any reason not to do both? Even assuming that all of those issues were "fixed" (which would be impossible, you cannot stop someone from being mentally ill and not seeking any treatment until its too late and they choose not to) there would still be incidents like the florida shooting where 50 innocent people die which could be cut down to a single digit death toll with a less lethal weapon of choice. I think that we should, as you said, address the problems that cause crimes to be committed in the first place, but that wont magically make the "death count zero" (lol, cmon).

Restricting people from purchasing firearms if you're on a Watchlist is a bad idea because there is no due process or oversight on who gets put on that list for what reason. I know it sounds like a good idea until you watch the wrong things on YouTube or say the wrong things online and you wake up the next morning with your rights suspended because someone you've never met thinks your interests and opinions make you a potential terrorist And I hope you don't have any enemies because it sure would be easy for your pissed of neighbor to report you to the FBI and say "I think the guy next door is a terrorist. Because of X Y Z that I decided to make up"

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;50527906]The argument that guns must not be banned because then people couldn't go shoot targets for fun is silly. There are plenty of ways to shoot targets without actual guns. Some ideas off the top of my head are VR, a fake gun with some hydraulic pistons to recreate recoil and maybe headphones for sound and lcd screen 'targets' that show bulletholes where you 'shot', airsoft/paintball guns and more.[/QUOTE] none of those are half as fun to use and you still have yet to offer me a compelling reason to chuck my century old "assault weapon" into a smelter

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527887][img]http://i.imgur.com/aGdDOJI.jpg[/img] look at this military style assault transport, i cant believe these are available to civilians[/QUOTE] This is a worthless non-argument and you know it, how dumb do you think I am?