• Obama praises Australia's, UK's gun laws following mass shooting
    400 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48805944]If the agenda is less gun deaths, it's a good agenda.[/QUOTE] Too bad it's not less gun deaths, it's less legal gun owners
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;48806914]I had a big post written up about Australia gun crime, the UK's general crime rate since handguns were banned in the late 90s and comparisons considering population differences to America, but apparently somebody not from the US can't understand how important it is for guns to not be massively restricted. I can understand not banning them entirely because even here in the UK and over in Australia you can obtain a firearms license under very strict circumstances, but why would massive restrictions that limited most Americans access to them be bad? I understand that it'd be a lot of work getting rid of so many weapons after so many years of throwing more guns at gun and crime issues, but in the end wouldn't it work out for the best? It certainly did with the UK and Australia.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should read through the two and a half pages of reason why guns are different to Americans than they are to Foreigners
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806909]Remind me, when was the last instance of Mass Police Scanner violence in USA? Consider the context of the discussion before presenting a poor argument like that. It's a total fallacy, and it just makes you sound stupid.[/QUOTE] Nice way to get testy over nothing, because that's actually a fair comparison. Police scanners are used by the media and hobbyists, but also used by criminals to stay a step ahead of police in highly illegal acts. They were banned from automobiles but allowed on foot and indoors. Recent Iphone technology now makes them, effectively mini police scanners the minute a scanner app in installed. Do we ban all police scanners? Theres a big hobbyist group out there. Do we allow them in cars? That might make it easier for criminals to listen in on a getaway. Do we ban the apps? What about the hobbyists? Before you go and call me stupid why don't you actually think about the implications. [QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;48806914]I can understand not banning them entirely because even here in the UK and over in Australia you can obtain a firearms license under very strict circumstances, but why would massive restrictions that limited most Americans access to them be bad? I understand that it'd be a lot of work getting rid of so many weapons after so many years of throwing more guns at gun and crime issues, but in the end wouldn't it work out for the best? It certainly did with the UK and Australia.[/QUOTE] A bit easy: The 2nd amendment, through time and through slight variations on interpretation boils down to if the U.S. were to be invaded, or the government deemed tyrannical by most of its citizens, then the 2nd amendment is a godsend. Due to this, messing with the 2nd amendment can also be interpreted as a tyrannical, or stepping stone to tyranny. The other issue is freedom of speech and general consumer rights. It's a billion dollar industry that even targets women with pink plastic components. Do hobbyists not have a say? They number the tens of millions. Most shootings are systemic from one thing or another, people argue [rightfully so] that we can address and minimize some obvious risks to society without drastic measure.
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48806172]All these people saying "Ban Guns" clearly have no idea what the second amendment is[/QUOTE] All of these people who seem to think that other people are saying "BAN GUNS" when really they are just saying "Can, we, you know, like any sane first world country, please have some regulations on guns" clearly have no idea what they are reading.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806824]I don't see why not. If you're a hunter or livestock owner, then it's reasonable that you keep your skills in check. No issue with hunters testing their skill on their own property, providing they're practicing in a safe environment. I'm speaking solely about people who own guns for other reasons. As it stands, you don't need to be a hunter or a livestock owner to own a gun. Besides military and police work, what other functional purposes are there to own a gun? I don't believe it's enough to simply [I]want[/I] to own a gun, you don't need one if you're not going to do something useful with it. Budget cash for a gun range membership and make use of it instead.[/QUOTE] oh nice, restricting gun ownership to the upper class. "budget cash for x" is the same thing "gun control advocates" (more like populace control advocates) said when cheap pistols were banned to keep guns out of black hands.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48806995]All of these people who seem to think that other people are saying "BAN GUNS" when really they are just saying "Can, we, you know, like any sane first world country, please have some regulations on guns" clearly have no idea what they are reading.[/QUOTE] We have thousands of guns laws, and a lot of federal gun laws on top of the tons of state ones...
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48807030]We have thousands of guns laws, and a lot of federal gun laws on top of the tons of state ones...[/QUOTE] And? Aside from Federal restriction of Automatic Weapons and the pretty insignificant Undetectable Firearms Act, what really else has provided real regulation of sale to guns? I mean sure, some states have some regulation based on that, but it probably isn't to hard to go across a state line and purchase a weapon anyways.
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;48806914]I understand that it'd be a lot of work getting rid of so many weapons [B]after so many years of throwing more guns at gun and crime issues,[/B] but in the end wouldn't it work out for the best? It certainly did with the UK and Australia.[/QUOTE] You totally just threw away your credibility. When has this ever been an actual thing? Nobody is "throwing guns at crime issues" and it pisses me off whenever someone says that, which is all the fucking time. As for it working in the UK and Australia, do consider that both of those nations exist in the middle of the ocean and therefore don't have the same issues regarding violent people traveling back and forth across the border. Also, the United States has a drastically different cultural composition due to it being the most diverse and therefore most divided country on the planet, just like this issue with any other issue it's not always as simple as saying "it works in this country maybe it will work in the US!"
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48807084]You totally just threw away your credibility. When has this ever been an actual thing? Nobody is "throwing guns at crime issues" and it pisses me off whenever someone says that, which is all the fucking time. As for it working in the UK and Australia, do consider that both of those nations exist in the middle of the ocean and therefore don't have the same issues regarding violent people traveling back and forth across the border. Also, the United States has a drastically different cultural composition due to it being the most diverse and therefore most divided country on the planet, just like this issue with any other issue it's not always as simple as saying "it works in this country maybe it will work in the US!"[/QUOTE] I think he was making a quip about how some pro-gun activists spout about how if we'd have more guns we'd be safer, and not actually being serious about that remark.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48807084]You totally just threw away your credibility. When has this ever been an actual thing? Nobody is "throwing guns at crime issues" and it pisses me off whenever someone says that, which is all the fucking time. As for it working in the UK and Australia, do consider that both of those nations exist in the middle of the ocean and therefore don't have the same issues regarding violent people traveling back and forth across the border. Also, the United States has a drastically different cultural composition due to it being the most diverse and therefore most divided country on the planet, just like this issue with any other issue it's not always as simple as saying "it works in this country maybe it will work in the US!"[/QUOTE] No, "Australia is the second most multicultural nation in the world, tied with Switzerland behind table-leader Luxembourg."
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48806860]because people like to shoot guns and have hobbies of it, I mean shit I don't see the whole need for a government regulated shooting range in the first place. I mean it'd be just as easy to break into as anywhere else. And keeping all the guns in one place might not be the best idea should someone actually want to do something crazy[/QUOTE] I like blowing things up with large amounts of high explosives, why won't the government let me do that without restriction? I also like getting high on heroin and cocaine, why does the government ban those?
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806824]I don't see why not. If you're a hunter or livestock owner, then it's reasonable that you keep your skills in check. No issue with hunters testing their skill on their own property, providing they're practicing in a safe environment. I'm speaking solely about people who own guns for other reasons. As it stands, you don't need to be a hunter or a livestock owner to own a gun. Besides military and police work, what other functional purposes are there to own a gun? I don't believe it's enough to simply [I]want[/I] to own a gun, you don't need one if you're not going to do something useful with it. Budget cash for a gun range membership and make use of it instead.[/QUOTE] You can't tell me what is an is not a legitimate reason for owning something. Guns are legal, and I want to own them. You don't need, nor should you need, any other god damn reason. I own it, it stays on my property. End of fucking story.
[QUOTE=bdd458;48807228]You can't tell me what is an is not a legitimate reason for owning something. Guns are legal, and I want to own them. You don't need, nor should you need, any other god damn reason. I own it, it stays on my property. End of fucking story.[/QUOTE] "You can't tell me what is and is not a legitimate reason for owning something. Nukes are legal, and I want to own them. You don't need, nor should you need, any other god damn reason. I own it, it stays in my country. End of fucking story." - Kim Jong Il
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48807251]"You can't tell me what is and is not a legitimate reason for owning something. Nukes are legal, and I want to own them. You don't need, nor should you need, any other god damn reason. I own it, it stays in my country. End of fucking story." - Kim Jong Il[/QUOTE] I shouldn't have to fucking justify owning legal property with some sort of magic fucking catch all excuse for the fucking anti-gun crowd.
[QUOTE=bdd458;48807275]I shouldn't have to fucking justify owning legal property with some sort of magic fucking catch all excuse for the fucking anti-gun crowd.[/QUOTE] No one is questioning why you own a gun. What people are questioning is why it's legal in the first place. Stop being so defensive.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48807251]"You can't tell me what is and is not a legitimate reason for owning something. Nukes are legal, and I want to own them. You don't need, nor should you need, any other god damn reason. I own it, it stays in my country. End of fucking story." - Kim Jong Il[/QUOTE] This isn't going to end well. Can we not have sanity here and acknowledge some countries have different ways of seeing things? Like in Iran, isn't a thumbs up highly insulting? In South America synthpop is still a top music genre, why can't those damn Africans get with the times already? Oh yeah - they like it. There is a way to regulate gun ownership to appease everyone, but you can't even get close to even a single agreement in a room full of screaming childre- I mean lobbyists and representatives. It actually takes tolerance and compromise, not complete bastardization of either side. John Doe likes his gun collection, so leave John Doe alone. Is he different from the guy who collects Swiss Army knives? He abides the law. He is not the problem and including him only grinds any debate of action to a halt. [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48807291]No one is questioning why you own a gun. What people are questioning is why it's legal in the first place. Stop being so defensive.[/QUOTE] You imply he thinks like Kim Jung and expect an open and happy response? To him, myself included, both go hand in hand.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48806105]i guess we should never try to do anything in life if it isn't easy[/QUOTE] It won't work effectively as you've intended it to be if you don't consider all of the variables available.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48807291]No one is questioning why you own a gun. What people are questioning is why it's legal in the first place. Stop being so defensive.[/QUOTE] You jump in and start comparing people to Kim Jong Il and you expect people to not be defensive ur a real piece of wurk [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bdd458;48807228]You can't tell me what is an is not a legitimate reason for owning something. Guns are legal, and I want to own them. You don't need, nor should you need, any other god damn reason. I own it, it stays on my property. End of fucking story.[/QUOTE] This guy gets it
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48807317]This isn't going to end well. Can we not have sanity here and acknowledge some countries have different ways of seeing things? Like in Iran, isn't a thumbs up highly insulting? In South America synthpop is still a top music genre, why can't those damn Africans get with the times already? Oh yeah - they like it. There is a way to regulate gun ownership to appease everyone, but you can't even get close to even a single agreement in a room full of screaming childre- I mean lobbyists and representatives. It actually takes tolerance and compromise, not complete bastardization of either side. John Doe likes his gun collection, so leave John Doe alone. Is he different from the guy who collects Swiss Army knives? He abides the law. He is not the problem and including him only grinds any debate of action to a halt. You imply he thinks like Kim Jung and expect an open and happy response? To him, myself included, both go hand in hand.[/QUOTE] Yes, cultures can be different. They can also be better or worse. Sharia Law, for example, is heavily embedded within the cultures of certain Middle Eastern countries, yet I'm sure none of you will contest the fact that it is barbaric and has no place in the modern world. John Doe himself has done nothing wrong. The problem is that his enjoyment of his hobby, and his insistence that he be allowed to enjoy it without restriction, indirectly leads to criminals being able to more easily access guns. To a lesser extent, we already apply the same logic with cars. We require people to have a license to drive a car, even though most people can drive perfectly fine without one. The point is to require people to prove that they can safely handle a car so as to weed out those who can't. Also, the only reason why I made that snipe in the first place is because his was being so incredibly antagonistic and immature.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48807062]And? Aside from Federal restriction of Automatic Weapons and the pretty insignificant Undetectable Firearms Act, what really else has provided real regulation of sale to guns? I mean sure, some states have some regulation based on that, but it probably isn't to hard to go across a state line and purchase a weapon anyways.[/QUOTE] Try all states All states require, at the bare minimum, that you present identification and fill out form [url=https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download]4473[/url], and all states require that you pass the background check that follows, and dealers are required to keep records of the whole transaction To the best of my knowledge, there's no state that only abides by the bare minimum, there's usually additional licensing required, wait periods, extended checks, extended ID requirements, limitations on what firearms are sold, classes to be passed, and a small host of other things It varies heavily from state to state and I'll freely admit that I don't have the most complete understanding of it myself, but I do urge you to at least do some surface level research about purchasing firearms because it's not nearly as simple and quick as people so often make it out to be, and there is a lot more restriction and regulation than is generally believed
[QUOTE=Sitkero;48807425]Try all states All states require, at the bare minimum, that you present identification and fill out form [url=https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download]4473[/url], and all states require that you pass the background check that follows, and dealers are required to keep records of the whole transaction To the best of my knowledge, there's no state that only abides by the bare minimum, there's usually additional licensing required, wait periods, extended checks, extended ID requirements, limitations on what firearms are sold, classes to be passed, and a small host of other things It varies heavily from state to state and I'll freely admit that I don't have the most complete understanding of it myself, but I do urge you to at least do some surface level research about purchasing firearms because it's not nearly as simple and quick as people so often make it out to be, and there is a lot more restriction and regulation than is generally believed[/QUOTE] As I understand, those restrictions only apply to sales from firearms dealers, not private sales. Am I right to say that?
[QUOTE=Sitkero;48807425]Try all states All states require, at the bare minimum, that you present identification and fill out form [URL="https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download"]4473[/URL], and all states require that you pass the background check that follows, and dealers are required to keep records of the whole transaction To the best of my knowledge, there's no state that only abides by the bare minimum, there's usually additional licensing required, wait periods, extended checks, extended ID requirements, limitations on what firearms are sold, classes to be passed, and a small host of other things It varies heavily from state to state and I'll freely admit that I don't have the most complete understanding of it myself, but I do urge you to at least do some surface level research about purchasing firearms because it's not nearly as simple and quick as people so often make it out to be, and there is a lot more restriction and regulation than is generally believed[/QUOTE] Yeah and as far as I know the only way to bypass the 4473 form is to go to a gunshow and purchase a gun from a private seller (aka someone who collects guns and sells them for fun). And even then most sellers will ask for an I.D. and keep a record of selling to you. Some will even go as far as writing down your Driver's License number. So ways for criminals to legally get a gun are still near to none. Unless they steal it ofc [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48807439]As I understand, those restrictions only apply to sales from firearms dealers, not private sales. Am I right to say that?[/QUOTE] Yes. For the most part. As far as I know straw purchasing even when it's a private sale is still very illegal and the ATF will rain down hell from above on you if they catch wind you sold a gun to someone that intends on selling/giving the gun to a criminal/felon.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48807416]Yes, cultures can be different. They can also be better or worse. Sharia Law, for example, is heavily embedded within the cultures of certain Middle Eastern countries, yet I'm sure none of you will contest the fact that it is barbaric and has no place in the modern world. John Doe himself has done nothing wrong. The problem is that his enjoyment of his hobby, and his insistence that he be allowed to enjoy it without restriction, indirectly leads to criminals being able to more easily access guns. To a lesser extent, we already apply the same logic with cars. We require people to have a license to drive a car, even though most people can drive perfectly fine without one. The point is to require people to prove that they can safely handle a car so as to weed out those who can't. Also, the only reason why I made that snipe in the first place is because his was being so incredibly antagonistic and immature.[/QUOTE] Dingdingdingding! We're getting close to something here that most people can't or won't differentiate between the two of: Regulation vs Restriction. Anyone can drive a jetski vs a normal boat, but you gotta pass some extra and borderline arbitrary tests. Driving is a privilege, not a right, though. Gun ownership is. but abusing the 2nd amendment to own a gun when a person is clearly insane or otherwise is abhorrent. There will never be a catch all, but there can be a "catch the obvious and infuriatingly stupid wackos with a history of malicious tendencies", and that is something that is lacking. We actually have the groundwork to do it. Policies do exist to catch this, but it isn't enforced correctly and boils down to what I know quite thoroughly: USDA and FDA practices. Not to entirely derail this, but a comparison can be made. Foster Farms chicken was poisoning millions with blatantly infected chicken. The outbreak of salmonella poisoning went on for years until a de-clawed USDA finally pushed for the right to close down factories for the salmonella. This is where I feel a lot of the issue resides: A dysfunctional screening program and may even zero in on the wrong people. If screening is improved on all fronts and probably even a registry initiated then things will become less heated in these debates because it will be under the [I]pretense that something is being done and some of the issues are being listened to by the people[/I]. It would make a world of difference, but a lot of this is my own opinion, too, so I might even be wrong on some things myself, but by all means something is better than sitting on laurels and preaching to choirs.
[QUOTE=bdd458;48807228]You can't tell me what is an is not a legitimate reason for owning something. Guns are legal, and I want to own them. You don't need, nor should you need, any other god damn reason. I own it, it stays on my property. End of fucking story.[/QUOTE] Your argument is "it's the law and I want one." Why is it lawful? Why do you want to own one? This isn't about taking guns from your hands. This is about keeping them out of the hands of those who are unfit to own one. This is about recognizing that there is a problem with the way gun ownership is currently being handled, as demonstrated by how routine USA's mass shootings have become, and about taking responsibility for this by correcting the problem. What are the negatives about tightening up the requirements to own a gun? What is so bad about an [i]incentive[/i] (not an obligation, an incentive) for people to sell their guns back to the state, via a national buy-back scheme? What makes it so terrible to reduce the number of guns available to US citizens, and owned by US citizens, if the goal is to reduce gun violence across the entire nation? Doesn't this go beyond what [i]you[/i] want?
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48806941]Perhaps you should read through the two and a half pages of reason why guns are different to Americans than they are to Foreigners[/QUOTE] TBH, it's only is because you keep perpetuating the gun culture to every single new generation.
[QUOTE=Toyhobo;48807508]TBH, it's only is because you keep perpetuating the gun culture to every single new generation.[/QUOTE] Tell me why this is a bad thing
We have pretty strict gun laws in the Netherlands and our last mass murder was 4 years ago, meanwhile the US has a mass murder every week. [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] But guns are really cool so it's worth it I guess.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48807435]alternatively you know a guy who knows a guy that is selling a gun that you can pay straight up with no background checks and its totally legal[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48807439]As I understand, those restrictions only apply to sales from firearms dealers, not private sales. Am I right to say that?[/QUOTE] Regulations on private sellership varies from [url=http://smartgunlaws.org/category/state-private-sales-of-guns/]state to state[/url], and can also vary county to county, and city to city [QUOTE=EvilMattress;48807442]Yeah and as far as I know the only way to bypass the 4473 form is to [b]go to a gunshow and purchase a gun from a private seller[/b] (aka someone who collects guns and sells them for fun). And even then most sellers will ask for an I.D. and keep a record of selling to you. Some will even go as far as writing down your Driver's License number. So ways for criminals to legally get a gun are still near to none. Unless they steal it ofc[/QUOTE] The infamous gunshow loophole isn't even much of a loophole, depending on state law and what the gun show's managing body allows, there might not even be private sellers there, and as far as I know, if selling at a gun show they have to follow the same state, federal, and local laws as licensed sellers
[QUOTE=Satansick;48807525]We have pretty strict gun laws in the Netherlands and our last mass murder was 4 years ago, meanwhile the US has a mass murder every week. [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] But guns are really cool so it's worth it I guess.[/QUOTE] Mass murders in the grand scheme of things are a very, very low statistic in U.S. gun related deaths, they just get a fuckload of news coverage that inflates the severity of it. Also nice hyperbole.
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48807483]Dingdingdingding! We're getting close to something here that most people can't or won't differentiate between the two of: Regulation vs Restriction. Anyone can drive a jetski vs a normal boat, but you gotta pass some extra and borderline arbitrary tests. Driving is a privilege, not a right, though. Gun ownership is. but abusing the 2nd amendment to own a gun when a person is clearly insane or otherwise is abhorrent. There will never be a catch all, but there can be a "catch the obvious and infuriatingly stupid wackos with a history of malicious tendencies", and that is something that is lacking. We actually have the groundwork to do it. Policies do exist to catch this, but it isn't enforced correctly and boils down to what I know quite thoroughly: USDA and FDA practices. Not to entirely derail this, but a comparison can be made. Foster Farms chicken was poisoning millions with blatantly infected chicken. The outbreak of salmonella poisoning went on for years until a de-clawed USDA finally pushed for the right to close down factories for the salmonella. This is where I feel a lot of the issue resides: A dysfunctional screening program and may even zero in on the wrong people. If screening is improved on all fronts and probably even a registry initiated then things will become less heated in these debates because it will be under the [I]pretense that something is being done and some of the issues are being listened to by the people[/I]. It would make a world of difference, but a lot of this is my own opinion, too, so I might even be wrong on some things myself, but by all means something is better than sitting on laurels and preaching to choirs.[/QUOTE] I feel that gun ownership should be a privilege rather than a right for the simple fact that it is so easily abusable, and that the relevance of the right to own firearms as a check and balance on government oppression has changed drastically since the Second Amendment was written into the constitution. But that's just my personal take on it, and I recognise that for a lot of Americans, they genuinely feel that it should be a right. From what I understand, a lot of gun crime is committed using guns bought in private sales. This is a grey area that I think the US needs to crack down on, although I don't know exactly how.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.