Majority in poll say Florida students 'effective advocates for gun control' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53193934]1. A safety class is mandatory. The classes will be held no less than 4 times a month, and shall be held free of cost. Ideally, the classes will be on different days of the month as well (IE 1st class is a monday, 2nd a wednesday, 3rd a friday, 4th a saturday). The class is 8-10 hours long, and has a range qualification with PROPERLY MAINTAINED weapons (I can't stress this enough, a poorly maintained weapon could cause someone to fail unjustly) 2. The license lasts for a minimum of 4 years, and has a 1 year "grace period" of renewal. No need to re-attend the class unless the classes curriculum has changed. 3. The license shall cost no more than 100$ 4. A single license is good for EVERY gun. No bullshit "can only have 3 guns with a license, have to ask for permission to have more, etc etc". If you're safe with 1, you're safe with them all. 5. The licensing system will not show what weapons you have purchased, only that you have the paperwork in order to purchase weapons. 6. And this is the important one. NO MODIFICATION of the license law is allowed, if modified in any way, the license law becomes null. (to keep bullshit from happening like "oh, there was just a shooting, so we're increasing the license fee to 430000 $, and we're not renewing licenses at this time).[/QUOTE] Sounds fair to me. What do you think about regulations on straw purchases to prevent people from illegally acquiring weapons?

[QUOTE=bdd458;53193929]I disagree, as the ability to be able to defend ones person is crucial. And it doesn’t matter what you think about it being a right is, in the US it is so you have to tackle it from that angle.[/QUOTE] ...No, I don't? I'm able to say that it's insensible for the U.S. to treat it like a human right. And defend yourself from what? And don't say "other guns," because then you're already admitting guns have an inherent danger we'd need to defend ourselves from.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53193937] Why is it sad to say that a firearm is too dangerous to be possessed by your average person?[/QUOTE] No more dangerous than any other thing if the person wielding it doesn't know how to properly and safely own it.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53193944]...No, I don't? I'm able to say that it's insensible for the U.S. to treat it like a human right. And defend yourself from what? And don't say "other guns," because then you're already admitting guns have an inherent danger we'd need to defend ourselves from.[/QUOTE] Wild animals, other people. If my life is in danger I am prepared to have to take a life. I don’t want to take a life, but if it is a life or death situation I am taking my fate into my own hands.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53193941]Because statistically, a firearm isn't too dangerous for an average person to have. Hell the police get less range time than your average joe CCW carrier, and yet somehow they're more qualified?[/QUOTE] "Statistically" doesn't work well when I'm very regularly reading about shootings. "Only (obviously hypothetical) 3% of people with firearms are dangerous!" is silly because that's 3% of the population that's threat that didn't have to be. The pros don't outweigh the cons.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53193937] Why is it sad to say that a firearm is too dangerous to be possessed by your average person?[/QUOTE] Because it reflects that the person saying that has no faith in their fellow man to not hurt people on a whim, which is an incorrect way of viewing things given the actual statistics on the matter, which means that they must be driven by fear-mongering or bought in to misinformation. I would feel sad for the person who believed that, because it seems like a rather grim and bleak view of humanity if you cant trust your neighbor, your fellow citizen, to do something as natural as [I]not harming people[/I] without sufficient justification. That view however is not supported when looking at the numbers or basic human psychology. The truth is that your average person is more than responsible enough to posses items that are dangerous. And to think otherwise is irrational and a disservice, insulting almost, to your fellow man.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53193948]No more dangerous than any other thing if the person wielding it doesn't know how to properly and safely own it.[/QUOTE] What other things would be as dangerous, that serves no other practical purpose? That is to say, not a car that can be dangerous but a car is also incredibly useful and arguably vital in day-to-day life?

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53193960]What other things would be as dangerous, that serves no other practical purpose? That is to say, not a car that can be dangerous but a car is also incredibly useful and arguably vital in day-to-day life?[/QUOTE] The funny part is the post directly above yours lists a bunch of practical reasons for firearms.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53193957]Because it reflects that the person saying that has no faith in their fellow man to not hurt people on a whim, which is an incorrect way of viewing things given the actual statistics on the matter, which means that they must be driven by fear-mongering or bought in to misinformation. I would feel sad for the person who believed that, because it seems like a rather grim and bleak view of humanity if you cant trust your neighbor, your fellow citizen, to do something as natural as [I]not harming people[/I] without sufficient justification. That view however is not supported when looking at the numbers or basic human psychology. The truth is that your average person is more than responsible enough to posses items that are dangerous. And to think otherwise is irrational and a disservice, insulting almost, to your fellow man.[/QUOTE] This is such a bizarre argument because it can also be applied to "why do we need law enforcement, have you no faith in your fellow man not to hurt people on a whim?" No, I don't trust the average person that much. Obviously. It's really weird to be trying to shame me in the sense of "it's pretty grim not to trust your neighbor..." [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53193963]That's 3 percent of the population that would move on to another weapon of choice. If you want it to not be a threat, then you'd have to start tackling the underlying issues as to why they're a threat in the first place. You're not fixing violence at that point, you're just moving the tools. And while you'll probably say "Yes but they'll use a less deadly tool" that's kinda bullshit isn't it? That's kinda just saying "well some casualties are acceptable, just not casualties from guns".[/QUOTE] It's not bullshit at all, and that's entirely contradictory? If it's less deadly, then there'd be less casualties. Obviously. It's nowhere near saying "some casualties are acceptable." And moving the tools seems perfectly sensible to me? If someone wants to harm me, I'd rather they be armed with anything that isn't a gun. You're right, overall we [I]should[/I] work towards preventing incidents happening at all. Absolutely. But lets not also give the means to make those incidents worse, while we're in a period where they [I]will[/I] happen.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53193963]And while you'll probably say "Yes but they'll use a less deadly tool" that's kinda bullshit isn't it? That's kinda just saying "well some casualties are acceptable, just not casualties from guns".[/QUOTE] That's a disingenuous argument, thinking that less deadly tools are preferable doesn't mean you believe that casualties are acceptable when they don't result from guns, where the hell did you pull that from? It just means that you'd rather there be less casualties than more casualties.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53193959]Defend myself from the meth head trying to kick in my door. Let my wife defend herself from a heroin fiend. Kill various animals for food, or for protection, or for pest destruction. Lets me enjoy myself and put holes in paper from various distances. Etc etc.[/QUOTE] Are meth heads and heroin fiends [I]really[/I] that much of an issue for you to bring them up? And to use your logic, why not solve the issue that creates the meth head/heroin fiend in the first place instead of insisting on having a gun to defend yourself from them? I don't feel killing various animals for food is absolutely neceserry for civilians, but I will say I'm comfortable with the idea of strict hunting licesnses for that scenario. And you don't need a gun for pest destruction.

I don't think firearm regulations would stop the shithole that is southwest Rockford from being a shithole. A majority of the firearm crime in my city is tied directly to the poor communities and the deep seated gang violence. Our schools are shit, our roads are shit, the jobs are leaving, the hospitals are understaffed, the educated are leaving, and our police are powerless to do anything. When I see a candidate for governor talk about how he wants to tackle "assault weapons" and other stupid BS, I just see "I don't actually care about the problems at hand"

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53193965]The funny part is the post directly above yours lists a bunch of practical reasons for firearms.[/QUOTE] Come on, the thread moves pretty quickly. Give me time to respond at least before trying to zing me. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53193978]They'll happen regardless of what we do, ESPECIALLY if we're not doing anything to challenge gang violence (IE continuing the war on drugs, etc etc). I'd wager you'd see a significant drop in gun deaths if we started tackling gang violence instead of drug users.[/QUOTE] Oh, agreed. There's a huge issue in America when it comes to how we treat drug users, preferring to criminalize them instead of helping them. The War on Drugs was/is mostly a farce.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53193993]Tell that to the raccoons and groundhogs that attempt to ruin my family's farm on an almost monthly basis. And if we're solving the meth/heroin problem, wouldn't that also reduce the amount of gun deaths? If so, then why do we need to restrict them? If we're actively tackling the things that CAUSE violence, then why do you need to take them away from people who actively aren't doing any harm?[/QUOTE] I would think that there are other, non-gun pest control methods. However, I don't know enough about pest control to debate that further. And it would, but not enough, especially since a lot of the gun deaths we've been hearing about weren't drug related. And because tackling all the issues that cause violence is a very long term goal, so for the time being, why leave the means of violence accessible?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53194013]Because those means aren't being used by anywhere near a majority. Using your numbers, right, your hypothetical 3%. Would removing the other 97%'s guns actually do anything? Other than cause MORE crime[/QUOTE] Got some stats to back that up?

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53193986]Come on, the thread moves pretty quickly. Give me time to respond at least before trying to zing me. [/QUOTE] It's not a zing, it's a common sense list of uses for firearms.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53193930]Does Massachusetts tend to have less incidents related to accidental discharges?[/QUOTE] The only thing I could find so far is a map saying that there were 3 accidental shootings in New Hampshire, compared to 1 shooting in Massachusetts. [url]http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/query/2f39b65e-f359-4614-bb34-1576259fed80/map[/url] Keep in mind that NH has no requirements anymore, but you can optionally apply for a CCW permit if you can find 3 references. I tried looking up the results on the CDC as well from this website [url]https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/[/url] But I couldn't compare non-fatal shootings by state, and the results of the fatal shootings were censored because both states had less than 10 accidental shootings (WTF?). Overall, yeah technically they did have less shootings than us, [del]but the sample size we're working with is too ridiculously small to have any clear conclusion unless there's a better source somewhere.[/del] oops didn't mean to say sample size. I meant amount of incidents were really low overall but per capita id does seem like we have more.

To those saying we need more control "in general" (whatever that means, because people are rarely specific) [URL="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls"]Gun crimes have been going down in general, and scary assault rifles are not even close to being the main problem[/URL] [URL="https://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers"]meanwhile, more guns are being bought, but by fewer households[/URL] [URL="http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html"]And defensive gun use rates consistently dwarf rates of criminal use[/URL] [URL="http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/"]And here are some more facts, too many to list[/URL] [URL="http://www.a-human-right.com/"]And to those thinking it isn't or should not be a human right[/URL]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53194022]It's not a zing, it's a common sense list of uses for firearms.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53193965]The funny part is the post directly above yours lists a bunch of practical reasons for firearms.[/QUOTE] [I]Your [/I]post was trying to zing me. Like I said, the thread moves fast.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53194053][URL="http://www.a-human-right.com/"]And to those thinking it isn't or should not be a human right - please visit this.[/URL][/QUOTE] What is this lol.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53194080]What is this lol.[/QUOTE] Are you going to come forward with an actual comment of substance? Or just meaningless snark which probably means that you don't have an actual valid argument against the site

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53194123]Are you going to come forward with an actual comment of substance? Or just meaningless snark which probably means that you don't have an actual valid argument against the site[/QUOTE] I mean I'd love to have an argument against it but I'd have to know what the point of the site is first. What exactly is there in here that makes an argument about gun ownership being a human right?

[QUOTE=_Axel;53194133]I mean I'd love to have an argument against it but I'd have to know what the point of the site is first. What exactly is there in here that makes an argument about gun ownership being a human right?[/QUOTE] Did you, you know... Actually complete the activity? Or just visit the first page and leave

I don't agree with many of their solutions but its hard to argue they aren't effective. I can't remember the last time gun control was so vocal and influential.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53193824]This stupid soundbite is getting really old and it's still total horseshit. In Switzerland every male adult is issued an honest-to-god fully-automatic assault rifle. Serbia has gun laws comparable to ours and is the runner-up for number of guns available to the populace but [I]still[/I] has a crime rate far lower than ours. The Czech Republic has a strong shooting culture but lower crime rate than many of its European neighbors. New Zealand has comparable culture to its Australian neighbors, but a similarly low crime rate despite much easier access to firearms. None of these countries have mass shooting problems. Meanwhile Democrats want our country to accept restrictions on firearm ownership that would be [I]stricter[/I] than any of these examples. If the argument is 'you just need to be as restrictive as peaceful European countries', we're virtually already there. The fact that it hasn't solved our gun violence problem should [I]maybe[/I] be a clue that there's more to it than that, and the fact that Democrats get so much pushback from even weekend hobbyists should [I]maybe[/I] be a clue that the resistance to their efforts is less 'I need muh guns' and more 'stop doing pointless shit'. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] You don't make people safer by deliberately preventing them from knowing how to safely handle dangerous objects. Is it 'irresponsible' to teach kids how to safely operate multi-ton vehicles capable of 100+MPH speeds that could easily kill themselves and others? A car is incredibly dangerous in untrained hands; that's exactly why we have driver's ed in schools.[/QUOTE] Did some basic googling and found that Switzerland issues a gun to men as part of "Mandatory Military Service" source:[URL="http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php"]http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php[/URL] [quote]Switzerland has a comprehensive gun-control regime that is governed by federal law and implemented by the cantons. This regime may be somewhat less restrictive than that of other European countries, yet since 2008 it has complied with European Union requirements. 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] Also, if they think there might be a risk of danger, they take the weapons: [quote]If there is danger of the abuse or improper handling or maintenance of the weapon, the commandant of the military unit will confiscate the personal weapon.[40] The police, courts, and prosecutors may inform the commandant of circumstances that call for the confiscation of the weapon.[41] The abuse or mishandling of weapons is punishable either by a disciplinary measure or by imprisonment or a fine, depending on the circumstances.[42] [/quote] the "they give you a gun" argument just seems really flimsy, because it's part of their mandatory military conscription. So I guess if we require conscription here that'd be good, because then we can have mandatory training and lessons. Because you used them as an example, I'm assuming this is what you are arguing for, because the gun issuance is just a part of conscription from what I read, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53194135]Did you, you know... Actually complete the activity? Or just visit the first page and leave[/QUOTE] You mean the questionnaire that's full of strawmen and restrictive/oriented answers? [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] I mean if you have a point to make about ownership being a human right, just tell it here directly rather than make us jump through onion-tier hoops.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53193471]We do not want compromise. We want our cake back, and all of it. At this moment in time, we have played this game for over one hundred years, and we are consistently being told the same line of, "They are not going to take everything! Just this one thing!" and then the next year they want another thing, and another. Gun grabbers never fucking stop. They want complete disarmament, and the removal of the 2nd amendment, and we are sick of it. It's been 100 years of concession without any form of true gain for gun rights activist. Why should we give up more?[/QUOTE] So uh why do you and Americans want guns so bad? I can understand protection, but that can easily be solved with more police. Like do you feel better having a big gun around you at all times? Why can't you guys be more like us where you only ever buy a gun for hunting

Yeah, uh, no. Guns should not be a Human right. Some people are completely unable to operate them safely. Some people should never have access to guns. If America wants to shoot itself up then fine, just dont bring your issues across the pond.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;53194167]but that can easily be solved with more police[/QUOTE] No, it can't. How are we supposed to trust the police when we regularly see articles of deep seated corruption, and even cooperation with radical political elements?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53194148]I mean, i'll be honest man, the page you get if you don't do the activity, is really cringy. Full of "come and take it" and other propaganda stuff. I'm not sure that this is a successful tool of argument.[/QUOTE] Indeed. [IMG]http://www.a-human-right.com/_selfdefense.jpg[/IMG] Aww so ~cute~. So much for criticising emotionally-loaded arguments, am I right ? Hahaha. Speaking of, is the right to live a human right ? Here we do have self-defense rights which forbid using an overpowered counter measure.