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

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53194785]You mean like all of the socioeconomic inequality and stigmas to mental health issues and the glaring issues with the education system and how it punishes people for being bullied and the massive gang problems, etc? [/QUOTE] Yes these are all things America continues to be embarrassingly shit at, and obviously all these things should be worked towards fixing, but you're obviously not going to magically fix all that anytime soon, and I don't see why you can't just work on both these things. Yes these issues can have many factors, but no matter what caused a person to want to shoot up a group of people, their access to guns absolutely comes into play, and I don't know why it's controversial to simply want it more difficult for these sorts of people to get access to a firearm.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;53194754]That’s exactly the point. Nothing ever gets done. You can’t argue this because of the stubbornness of gun nuts.[/QUOTE] Maybe the first step in accomplishing something is not starting off with playground name calling?

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;53194813]Yes these are all things America continues to be embarrassingly shit at, and obviously all these things should be worked towards fixing, but you're obviously not going to magically fix all that anytime soon, and I don't see why you can't just work on both these things. Yes these issues can have many factors, but no matter what caused a person to want to shoot up a group of people, their access to guns absolutely comes into play, and I don't know why it's controversial to simply want it more difficult for these sorts of people to get access to a firearm.[/QUOTE] You cant possibly believe that this argument thats been failing to stop school shootings since columbine is going to get anywhere faster than those potentially could, do you? Yeah the governments shit and all so its all a crapshoot but christ almighty is one exponentially more difficult to even begin doing anything with than the other. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] Not only that but you're also counting on them to even be competent about enforcing the laws and actually doing their job. You know like they failed to do in the church shooting, and also the whole "got notified like 40 times about this one kid" thing.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;53194813]Yes these are all things America continues to be embarrassingly shit at, and obviously all these things should be worked towards fixing, but you're obviously not going to magically fix all that anytime soon, and I don't see why you can't just work on both these things. Yes these issues can have many factors, but no matter what caused a person to want to shoot up a group of people, their access to guns absolutely comes into play, and I don't know why it's controversial to simply want it more difficult for these sorts of people to get access to a firearm.[/QUOTE] Why not focus on the solution that actually helps people, rather than the one that arbitrarily punishes the many for the crimes of the few? Improving quality of life across the board will see a decrease in violent crime [I]across the board.[/I] No, it won't be easy, especially not with the political environment being what it is today, and no, the effects won't be instantaneous. But it also won't sweep up law-abiding citizens and lump them into the same league as mass murderers because of a hobby, or a method of self-defense that is outright necessary in some parts of this country.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53194812]Considering the proportion of crime in the US carried out with stolen guns in the first place, comparisons between ease of legal purchase are completely fucking irrelevant. What matters is these countries are also "saturated with" guns and do not have a gun crime problem. The gun laws which law abiding citizens follow are irrelevant when someone who wants to break the law can circumvent them all by just stealing one from someone who jumped through the hoops. Yet nobody is breaking into Hans' house and stealing his SG-552 to commit a crime. That's because these are stable societies.[/QUOTE] I mean isn't the fact that most crimes are committed with a stolen gun a pretty good reason to introduce mandatory gun safes? I mean you're probably gonna reply that that would be too expensive for poor gun owners or inconvenient in cases of self-defense, but yeah I mean just seems like a bit of a vicious circle there, then.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;53194916]I mean isn't the fact that most crimes are committed with a stolen gun a pretty good reason to introduce mandatory gun safes? I mean you're probably gonna reply that that would be too expensive for poor gun owners or inconvenient in cases of self-defense, but yeah I mean just seems like a bit of a vicious circle there, then.[/QUOTE] It's unenforceable because cops can't go into someone's home to check on it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53194930]It's unenforceable because cops can't go into someone's home to check on it.[/QUOTE] But if someone do happen to get their weapon stolen and has no safe to show for it then they could be punished for not properly securing it.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53194933]But if someone do happen to get their weapon stolen and has no safe to show for it then they could be punished for not properly securing it.[/QUOTE] And that solves the crime the stolen weapon is used in how?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53194935]And that solves the crime the stolen weapon is used in how?[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with solving the crime? This is the same thing as holding people who sell/give a weapon later used in crimes as accessory to them. Don't take care of your weapons responsibly? You pay the price.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53194944]What does this have to do with solving the crime? This is the same thing as holding people who sell/give a weapon later used in crimes as accessory to them. Don't take care of your weapons responsibly? You pay the price.[/QUOTE] Well I'm more looking for laws that prevent crime, not just add more to the prison roster.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53194953]Well I'm more looking for laws that prevent crime, not just add more to the prison roster.[/QUOTE] Incentivizing people to properly secure their weapon, and not sell it or give it willy-nilly to people they don't trust to the fullest, would prevent them from landing into criminals' hands. Since, you know, the majority of crimes are committed using stolen weapons and all that? I don't see how that doesn't fit your standards TBH. [editline]12th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53194961]And what happens when that law makes me not report my weapon as stolen? I mean, the first thing that happens after a weapon is stolen is the serial gets taken off, so its not going to get traced back to me in the first place. I mean, its barking up the right tree, but I don't see it actually working the way you'd think it'd work.[/QUOTE] If the serial is filed off, does it really make a difference whether you report it or not? It's not like the police is going to find it either way. The law makes no difference in this case. It does matter in the event the weapon can be traced back though.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53194974]So then its another law that doesnt get enforced? I mean it makes sense to me to have a law like that, though I highly question how effective it will be.[/QUOTE] I mean it would get enforced occasionally, if only in the cases of school shootings where the shooters stole their relatives' weapons. Anecdotal, but since those cases are talked about a lot I wouldn't be surprised if it could help dissuade people from letting their stuff lay around.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53194985]I mean to be fair, this last incident had the gun locked up, and the teenager had a key that the family didnt know about. In that instance im not sure charging the family would be appropriate.[/QUOTE] Sure, I'm referring to incidents where negligence plays a role.

I'm not principally opposed to a safe storage law, but if you want a gun safe that's actually secure, be prepared to shell out $800 minimum, and not everyone has room for a safe in their domicile. They're expensive and bulky and a pain in the ass to move. I don't have a solution to that but it'd have to be solved before a safe storage law could be considered fair.

I didn't even think about that but yeah. Although I imagine a court would smite your landlord in the case that a safe storage law was passed.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53195090]On top of that, you could be in a position like me and not be able to legally modify your residence. I live in an apartment, and asked the landlord if I could install a safe, and they laughed me out of the room. We'd have to either A. Make it so that you COULD install a safe in every domicile, or B. Waive the requirement for people living in that kind of situation. I could also see a potential tax benefit for a safe, like if you buy a safe the fed refunds your costs, as well as assistance for those who couldn't afford the safe anyway.[/QUOTE] Well you could add in the stipulation that all apartments are required to have a safe that is properly secured. It would be useful for more than just firearms. It's basically a giant secure cabinet.

A safe is a good idea anyway. Important documents and money can be stored safely

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53195104]A safe is a good idea anyway. Important documents and money can be stored safely[/QUOTE] I really wish mine had one. It doesn't pay for me to get one because I can't bolt it to the floor like you're supposed to. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53195108]While that would be nice, I don't see that legislation going anywhere. I'd rather they just allow me to modify the apartment, since i'd buy an actual nice safe, rather than a bottom basic one they'd install.[/QUOTE] Well, I'm in a different situation. I'm just working away from home, so I would like them to provide it so I don't have to worry about what to do with it when I leave to go back home since we have one there already.

How do you guys (both pro and anti) feel about this idea: Subsidized / Tax deductible gun safes The reason I don't have a safe is because I am in a pretty good neighborhood, and I'd rather have 5 guns hidden than 2 guns in a safe because safes are pretty expensive if you want something more than a cheap locker. We know that stolen guns account for a huge number of the guns used in crime, so this seems like something that would appease gun owners by making safes more affordable and also reduce gun crime by lowering the number of guns available to criminals without infringing on anyone's rights at all.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;53194783]You mentioned Switzerland, a country with significantly stricter gun laws as brought up by other posts. Same with New Zealand. Do you really think it’s as easy to get a gun in NZ as in America?[/QUOTE] If you'd bothered to actually read before posting you'd have noticed he referred to New Zealand in relation to Australia.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53193476]Oh no, poor poor you, what would you do without guns?!?! Seriously, come on, get off the melodrama and get some perspective on what's really important[/QUOTE] How else is he going to go live "inna woods" when shit hits the fan? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("" - Bradyns))[/highlight] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming (Alluding to redneck)" - Bradyns))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=download;53195185]If you'd bothered to actually read before posting you'd have noticed he referred to New Zealand in relation to Australia.[/QUOTE] I think you're the one not reading things m8. He was talking about NZ gun laws being more lax than Australia, and I said their more lax laws are still a helluva lot more restrictive than the US. Where are you getting confused? NZ have a vetting process for gun licenses. From Wikipedia: [QUOTE]Except under supervision of a licence holder, owning or using firearms requires a firearms licence from the police. The licence is normally issued under the conditions that the applicant has secure storage for firearms, attends a safety program administered by the Mountain Safety Council and passes a written safety test. The police will also interview the applicant and two referees (one must be a close relative and the other not related) to determine whether the applicant is "fit and proper" to have a firearm. The applicant's residence is also visited to check that they have appropriate storage for firearms and ammunition. Having criminal associations or a history of domestic violence almost always leads to a licence being declined. A standard firearms licence allows the use of "A Category" firearms. To possess firearms of another category a person is required to get an endorsement to their licence. There are different endorsements for different classes of firearm but they all require a higher level of storage security, stricter vetting requirements and the applicant must have an end use for wanting the endorsement. Be it pest control for E cat, cowboy shooting and 3-gun for B cat, or just wanting to collect (provided one has adequate storage security) for C cat.[/QUOTE] Sounds p good to me

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;53195376]I think you're the one not reading things m8. He was talking about NZ gun laws being more lax than Australia, and I said their more lax laws are still a helluva lot more restrictive than the US. Where are you getting confused? NZ have a vetting process for gun licenses. From Wikipedia: Sounds p good to me[/QUOTE] Unfortunately it's been hammered into us over and over again that mandating showing any ounce of a hint of responsibility before giving someone a fire-arm isn't happening because that's somehow going too far somehow so I doubt it will ever happen in any capacity outside what is already being challenged by the pro-gun side. It didn't happen in the 90s when it "wasn't a problem with guns" and nothing has happened since then except for an increase in the number of incidents and the number of bodies, so I doubt anything will happen this time around, either. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] [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] Well what the fresh fuck do you want, then? Fully automatics? Is that what it will take for you to stop being so paranoid about this issue every god-damned time this happens? How much more do you want US to give up for YOUR right to easily own a gun, let alone a fully automatic, if it means that you and every other gun owner, manufacturer, lobbyist, retailer, whoever finally does SOMETHING to curb the threat of gun crime? Because I already gave up a friend in high school for YOUR right to be able to EASILY buy a gun, so I am SO terribly sorry if he wasn't enough because I'm not willing to give up anymore just so you can afford the luxury of hiding in the woods when people start shitting on any rights but the right to own a gun.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;53195376]I think you're the one not reading things m8. He was talking about NZ gun laws being more lax than Australia, and I said their more lax laws are still a helluva lot more restrictive than the US. Where are you getting confused? NZ have a vetting process for gun licenses. From Wikipedia: Sounds p good to me[/QUOTE] And you don't understand the point he was making. New Zealand allows guns that are banned in Australia, and New Zealand has a lower murder and crime rate despite a laxer licensing system. Evidence that between two countries that are basically cultural siblings, banning semi-autos does not mean lower murder rate or lower mass shooting rate. [editline]12th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53195229]How else is he going to go live "inna woods" when shit hits the fan?[/QUOTE] Still straw-manning I see. I shouldn't be surprised. Do you actually believe anything you have said on this topic in the last week has been productive? I've seen a better level of argument from the average /pol/ user.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53194801] For like the third time, it doesn't matter how strict the gun laws are if the government is handing out machine guns to every able-bodied male and no mass shootings or crazy homicide rates result. They have ready access to guns, end of story.[/QUOTE] In the original florida thread there was an extensive discussion about the swiss laws on firearms, and they really, really aren't this simple - this is a real gross oversimplification. In your specific example of militia members, yes, they have their militia weapon, but they don't keep it with ammo (unless they are a specialist militia member such as airport defence), and they have to get a permit for it when their service period has ended (and as mentioned in the thread there's various checks in place for this process done at the Canton level). it's also a weird point because switzerland [I]does [/I]have a higher than average gun death rate (in Europe). It just happens to mostly suicide. But current swiss gun control laws are definitely informed by firearms offenses that happened in the past (I believe the current laws are informed by when a militia member shot his wife and then himself, might be hazy on the exact details of that) - making it sound like it's a utopia-for-guns situation is absurd because even swiss law on guns has been constantly changing (in line with EU law, and also federal legislation) (For some examples of swiss gun crimes: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre[/URL] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinne_Rey-Bellet#Death[/URL] this last one I believe inspired the 2007 changes in federal law that I mentioned above. Swiss gun crimes are definitely far rarer than America's per person, just trying to make the point that swiss law [I]has [/I]changed in response to gun crimes as well. Afaik Zug was the first of it's kind, and yet it still prompted policy changes across the board) it's annoying to see people who have called others/politicians out for not having any clue about firearms (which is a fair point), but then bring up Switzerland with a poor understanding of the actual firearms culture and law - hell i'm no expert at all, and I'm open to a swiss person coming in and disputing what i'm saying, but even with the understanding of someone who visits switzerland often, and has read some swiss firearms legislation, it's fairly clear it isn't as simple as has been described

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53195670]In your specific example of militia members, yes, they have their militia weapon, but they don't keep it with ammo[/QUOTE] But they are freely allowed to buy ammo. So, they have ready access to automatic firearms and ammunition. I am aware that Switzerland's laws are stricter than the US. I am aware that they have a firearm death rate marginally higher than their neighbors. I thought my point was pretty simple but this is like the fourth time I'm having to explain it so I'll break it down as simply as I can. 1. The claim was that America's ridiculous homicide and mass shooting rate is the result of easy access to firearms. 2. Switzerland has easy access to firearms, issued by its government. 3. Switzerland does not have a ridiculous homicide or mass murder rate. 4. Ergo, claim #1 is invalid. That's all there is to it. Switzerland could ban private ownership of firearms altogether, but as long as they're still issuing assault rifles to every able-bodied young male (you know, the prime demographic for violence in literally every country) and allowing them to buy ammo, they'll still have ready access to firearms. The result is demonstrably not what we see in the US. It's almost like there are other factors more important than gun availability driving crime. You want to argue that it increases suicide rate, yeah, I'll buy that. You want to point out that private ownership of firearms is harder in Switzerland than the US, yes, I'm well aware, but it's beside the point. The demographic most likely to carry out a mass shooting has the tools at their disposal to do so, but don't. Switzerland might not be 'gun utopia' but it's a pretty compelling argument that assault rifles in the hands of young men doesn't inevitably lead to mass shootings and a 4-5 per 100,000 homicide rate. Anyways, why is everyone zeroing on the Switzerland comparison and ignoring Serbia? That country is awash with privately owned firearms and has a homicide rate nearly as good as its gun-banning European counterparts.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53195827]1. The claim was that America's ridiculous homicide and mass shooting rate is the result of easy access to firearms. 2. Switzerland has easy access to firearms, issued by its government. 3. Switzerland does not have a ridiculous homicide or mass murder rate. 4. Ergo, claim #1 is invalid.[/QUOTE] Your demonstration only work if the claim is so simplistic that it assumes proliferation is the sole root cause of your nonsensical murder rates. It falls apart as soon as one considers it's one factor among several.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53195848]Your demonstration only work if the claim is so simplistic that it assumes proliferation is the sole root cause of your nonsensical murder rates. It falls apart as soon as one considers it's one factor among several.[/QUOTE] That's literally what I'm saying, in response to someone making exactly that simplistic claim. Read the thread.

I've been a pretty vocal supporter of 2nd Amendment rights in real life, and I'm surrounded by very left-wing and liberal people. They get heated sometimes. People on Facepunch have educated me about guns, and I've generally become more supportive of gun rights over time. Others, like JoeSkylynx, have slowly been changing my mind - in favor of more restrictive gun policy. The refusal to budge on a policy issue that the [I]vast majority of the American people[/I] support wholeheartedly is arrogant, selfish, and outright anti-democratic. The role of government is to provide a safe, peaceful, and productive society for its citizens. Guns have demonstrably interrupted the peace and safety of our society. Over and fucking over again. Innocent people - schoolchildren - continue to die because we're refusing to take action on this issue. What's the solution? We've tried increasingly militarizing the police to compete - now people are just scared of the police and more innocent people get killed. An arms race isn't going to reduce violence. I've said this before - but I firmly believe guns don't kill people, people kill people. Violence is an innate part of human nature. The problem with guns is that they [I]drastically increase the amount of damage a violent person can cause.[/I] We don't let people buy ingredients to make bombs - not because bombs make people violent, but because bombs increase the damage a violent person can cause. Restricting guns is like taking NyQuil when you're sick. It won't cure the underlying problem of gun violence - that is to say, [I]violence[/I] - but it'll sure as hell reduce the impact it has. If that makes your hobby more expensive and more restricted, I'm sorry, but that's a price we need to pay as a society to stop innocent people from getting repeatedly gunned down by violent psychopaths. If you continue to prioritize your hobby over the lives of your fellow citizens, because you want to play out your fantasies of living in Fallout 4, you're not only being selfish, but you're also being an irresponsible gun owner. Responsible gun owners would advocate for massively increased gun safety education programs, they'd acknowledge why firearms require greater restrictions (especially private sales), and they wouldn't whine and moan about how they're being oppressed by the big evil government. We have a responsibility to our fellow citizens - and sometimes that means giving shit up. Responsibility is more than just safety - it's about social obligations and civic duties. If JoeSkylynx is this forum's example of a responsible gun hobbyist advocating for his constitutional rights, our standards for "responsible" are way too fucking low. Nice, you know not to keep your finger resting on the trigger. Nice. Good job. Now take responsibility for how advocating for [I]reduced[/I] gun regulation is helping violent people use guns to magnify the damage they cause.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53195881]arrogant, selfish, and outright anti-democratic.[/QUOTE] Sticking to your beliefs is not "anti-democratic". Just because you don't do what everyone else does is not arrogant, selfish, or anti-democratic. I'd say it's more anti-democratic to go with the flow just because everyone else is.