Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[FiveSpeedf150]

Personally, I'd wait for the Supreme Court to overturn whatever decision allowed this to happen and reclaim my weapons or use the compensatory check to replenish my arsenal. Failing that, it's not like they're tracked accurately enough that I couldn't just hide one until the heat was off.

"...not like they're tracked accurately enough that I couldn't just hide one until the heat was off."

Maybe a reason why the need for better gun control?

As Breivik noted... he had a "clean criminal record, hunting license, and two guns already for seven years", and that obtaining the guns legally should therefore not be a problem.

There is no reason that a free man without a criminal record should be denied the right to purchase arms. The downside of that is that sometimes, rarely, those free men will turn out to be bad people who just haven't committed a crime yet.

The eternal pursuit of safety is a true enemy of freedom and should be regarded as such.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

The eternal pursuit of safety is a true enemy of freedom and should be regarded as such.

Except ultimate freedom would be the ability to send your kids to school without fear of the school being shot up by some madman.

Countries without widely available firearms enjoy this freedom.

That's not freedom, that's security. Certain people don't see a difference between the two.

 

[Vegosiux]

The eternal pursuit of safety is a true enemy of freedom and should be regarded as such.

You see "freedom" as "absence of limitation", I suppose.

I see it more as "availability of more options that aren't a health hazard".

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

The eternal pursuit of safety is a true enemy of freedom and should be regarded as such.

You see "freedom" as "absence of limitation", I suppose.

I see it more as "availability of more options that aren't a health hazard".

Fair enough. I'm a "do your own thing" type, myself. I don't fear guns in the hands of my countrymen, even though some occasionally go nutty and shoot each other. The vast majority of gun violence is criminals shooting each other anyway. The reason kids shooting up a school is such a big story is because it's such a rare event. Similar to a plane crash, far more bodies all at once despite air travel being safer than driving and all that.

Same reason I don't feel we should ban alcohol, even though drunk drivers kill so many people. Plenty of people drink in moderation and hurt nobody, why should they, then, be punished?

 

[chadachada123]

The eternal pursuit of safety is a true enemy of freedom and should be regarded as such.

Except ultimate freedom would be the ability to send your kids to school without fear of the school being shot up by some madman.

Countries without widely available firearms enjoy this freedom.

You will never have that freedom, and other countries only enjoy the ILLUSION of that freedom.

It would be ludicrously easy to kill far more people than the greatest lone shooter using explosives, explosives that could never realistically be controlled. I imagine most mass shooters are, however, not going for efficiency, and are instead going for the personal bond between themselves and their victims, or at least whatever they think will make the most headlines. Obviously, the reasons for shooting up a school or theater in the first place are going to be incredibly complex for your average psychopath/humanity-hater, let alone one with autism or some other mental illness that is hard to read.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

That's not freedom, that's security. Certain people don't see a difference between the two.

So you're saying that everybody having guns doesn't equal security?
THANK YOU!

Agreed.

Of course, if you said that nobody having guns equaled security, I would disagree. ;-)

I do believe that guns in the hands of good people do more good than harm.

 

[the clockmaker]

That's not freedom, that's security. Certain people don't see a difference between the two.

So you're saying that everybody having guns doesn't equal security?
THANK YOU!

Agreed.

Of course, if you said that nobody having guns equaled security, I would disagree. ;-)

I do believe that guns in the hands of good people do more good than harm.

That is the problem though, how do we define 'good people' how do we prevent them from falling into the hands of 'good people' everyone has a point at which they will do 'bad' things in pursuit of a 'good' goal, what concerns me is what many people think is a good goal. Sure, you have people who think that a good goal is keeping the government from forming concentration camps, and I would agree, but then you have those who think a good goal is preventing blacks and whites from marrying each other, or simply obtaining property that doesn't belong to them, and those people with those goals have the same access to weaponry that people with more innocuous goals do

What we need to do is agree, as a society, what is good and what is bad, I mean, we can start at basic things like freedom of speech, right to life, things like that. Then we can make these, oh, I don't know lets call them 'laws' official, so that everybody has to follow them. Now, we need a group of people, picked from the citizenry, who we can arm to enforce these 'laws'. We will train them, and make sure that they can be clearly identified by the public, maybe by a uniform or something like that. I will call this new institution 'police' and then we can begin the work of creating and enforcing a system of legal checks and balances to ensure that they do not get too power hungry.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

That's not freedom, that's security. Certain people don't see a difference between the two.

So you're saying that everybody having guns doesn't equal security?
THANK YOU!

Agreed.

Of course, if you said that nobody having guns equaled security, I would disagree. ;-)

I do believe that guns in the hands of good people do more good than harm.

I will call this new institution 'police' and then we can begin the work of creating and enforcing a system of legal checks and balances to ensure that they do not get too power hungry.

Being excessively verbose does not constitute wit. You believe only the police and military should have guns?

I've been both police & military in my time. That have never made me better than the average citizen, and something that we keep ignoring in this thread is the face that the vast majority of gun owners aren't criminals and aren't hurting anybody. Yet everyone's clamoring to kick their door down & shoot 'em in the face (with police/military owned guns of course) if they don't surrender their weapons. All this due to the actions of some asshole. Shame, really.

As a cop, I'd rather be arresting actual bad guys.

 

[the clockmaker]

Being excessively verbose

I thought that I used very simple word there

does not constitute wit. You believe only the police and military should have guns?

they should be the only ones with firearms designed for the purpose of killing human beings, hunting weapons and sporting weapons should be subject to no more regulation than they are in Australia.

I've been both police & military in my time.

ditto, for the mil part anyway and while I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, it is important to remember that claiming qualifications over the internet is hard to verify and are as such, subject to doubt

That have never made me better than the average citizen

not intrinsically better no, but though the legal system, charged with being better professionally. If your armed forces and police forces cannot do that, then it is not time to abandon faith in the legal system and start arming everybody, it is time to reform the system.

and something that we keep ignoring in this thread is the face that the vast majority of gun owners aren't criminals and aren't hurting anybody.

And it is unfortunate for them that the negative societal effects of firearms outweigh their hobby.

Yet everyone's

Be careful when you say everyone, it makes you look like you see people who disagree with you as a hegemonic mass

clamoring to kick their door down & shoot 'em in the face (with police/military owned guns of course) if they don't surrender their weapons.

Actually, no, here is what I am recommending, (note that this is only for law abiding gun owners, I would not recommend this process for, say a white supremacist gang HQ)
1- the law is passed and all citizens are made aware of its elements
2- The buyback/amnesty period/tax incentive to trade in for a legal weapon/whatever method used to begin to filter out the undesired weapons occurs.
3- Sticking point occurs, a person is known to have a weapon, but does not wish to surrender it.
3a- The firearm owner is notified by letter that their weapon has been deemed illegal and that they are required to dispose of it through one of the discussed methods, if they do not comply then...
3b- An unarmed civil servant comes and politely knocks on their door asking to discuss the issue with them. The person is, again made aware that they are in breach of the law and are informed of how they are able to proceed. This civil servant should be trained in the various alternative weapons that the owner could choose to possess or alternative hobbies that they could pursue. They are given another set period in which to move into compliance, the weapon is not seized by force if they do not comply then...
3c- A follow up visit is conducted by an unarmed civil servant who informs the owner that they have exhausted their time and are required to surrender the weapon. If the owner still refuses, they are made aware that the police will be in attendance at the next visit. The civil servant does not try and take the weapon by force. If they do not comply then...
3d- The police visit the owner and are armed as if for any patrol. They do not kick in the door, they knock and inform the owner that they are conducting a seizure of the weapon under the blahblahblah act of blah blah, that charges are not being pressed against them but will be in the event that they resist. If they do not comply then...
3e- The owner is arrested as anyone else in breach of the law would be, however if they attempt to threaten force against the arresting officers...
3f- the police conduct standard procedure as they would against any other violent offender, if the offender cannot be talked down...
3g- the police physically subdue the offender, if the offender is armed
3h- the police draw weapons and attempt to defuse the situation as they would any other armed offender, if the offender cannot be talked down and remains a lethal threat...
3i- then and only then will they be combated using lethal force.

I know that many people will hide their weapons, many will simply stow them and forget about them. I am not claiming that this will work overnight, but rather it will instigate a trend of general disarmament in the populace over years or decades until the undesired weapons have been filtered out. The US, it seems, is here to stay and we can afford to look for solutions of other varieties than the 'golden bullet'

I believe that the majority of people advocating lethal force to remove firearms from personal possession assume that this graduation of force is so obvious as to be taken as read, or alternatively are responding to those stating that they would 'Kill the person who tries to take it from you' as their first measure. I mean, it is understandable to argue in favor of continuing to possess these types of firearms, there are indeed some critical points to be discussed upon it, but you must understand that the people 'clamoring' for instant violence in the event of this legislation are not the people arguing for it, but against it.

All this due to the actions of some asshole. Shame, really.

As a cop, I'd rather be arresting actual bad guys.

And you would not be required to arrest anyone who has not attempted to commit or threaten violence against others. I mean, with both military and law enforcement experience, surely you would understand the principle of graduation of appropriate force.

 

[Olas]

The eternal pursuit of safety is a true enemy of freedom and should be regarded as such.

Except ultimate freedom would be the ability to send your kids to school without fear of the school being shot up by some madman.

Countries without widely available firearms enjoy this freedom.

That's not freedom, that's security. Certain people don't see a difference between the two.

But security is a type of freedom. Freedom from danger, freedom from fear, freedom to live normally. Plus if your world is unsafe you can't risk doing many things you'd otherwise be free to. Next thing you know people stay in their houses from fear to go out into the world, that's not freedom in any sense.

 

[Strazdas]

A ban in the USA would probably result in everyone just hiding their shit. Now a ban with confiscation? As in actually trying to enforce it? LOLerskates. That'll be fun.

And who's gonna do it? Local cops are some of the biggest gun guys I know, and they generally agree that law-abiding citizens who own a few AR15's because they like the damn things aren't the problem with society that politicians are currently making them out to be.

Yes, it is a sad state of affairs when even police officers think that everyone having guns is a good thing. Actually, the more people on the escapist tell me about US police force the more i think they should start making an IQ test to apply for police academy.

There is no reason that a free man without a criminal record should be denied the right to purchase arms. The downside of that is that sometimes, rarely, those free men will turn out to be bad people who just haven't committed a crime yet.

The eternal pursuit of safety is a true enemy of freedom and should be regarded as such.

There is no reason that a free man without criminal intentions should need to own a gun.
The eternal pursuit of freedom is anarcy.
The eternal pursuit of safety is order.
Id rather take order.

Same reason I don't feel we should ban alcohol, even though drunk drivers kill so many people. Plenty of people drink in moderation and hurt nobody, why should they, then, be punished?

It is imposible to drink and hurt nobody. at best, you are hurting yourself only. But thats a different can of worms.

You believe only the police and military should have guns?

Yes, only police and military should have guns.

I believe that the majority of people advocating lethal force to remove firearms from personal possession assume that this graduation of force is so obvious as to be taken as read, or alternatively are responding to those stating that they would 'Kill the person who tries to take it from you' as their first measure. I mean, it is understandable to argue in favor of continuing to possess these types of firearms, there are indeed some critical points to be discussed upon it, but you must understand that the people 'clamoring' for instant violence in the event of this legislation are not the people arguing for it, but against it.

Yes, indeed the "Taking weapons away by force" should go something like the procedure you described rather than coming in guns blazing.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

This thread certainly exemplifies the differences between American and European thinking.

As usual, I have a standing offer to take people shooting should they ever visit South Florida. Maybe you'll learn to appreciate them. Most likely not, but I can say I tried.

If some people had their way I swear we'd all be living in padded rooms for our entire "lives".

 

[the clockmaker]

This thread certainly exemplifies the differences between American and European thinking.

As usual, I have a standing offer to take people shooting should they ever visit South Florida. Maybe you'll learn to appreciate them. Most likely not, but I can say I tried.

If some people had their way I swear we'd all be living in padded rooms for our entire "lives".

I like the assumption that people who are in favor of regulation of firearms have no experience with them.
Wait, like isn't the word I'm looking for...

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

This thread certainly exemplifies the differences between American and European thinking.

As usual, I have a standing offer to take people shooting should they ever visit South Florida. Maybe you'll learn to appreciate them. Most likely not, but I can say I tried.

If some people had their way I swear we'd all be living in padded rooms for our entire "lives".

I like the assumption that people who are in favor of regulation of firearms have no experience with them.
Wait, like isn't the word I'm looking for...

I can fix ignorance.

In your case, you know about guns and don't think people should be allowed to have them. I can't fix that. Carry on.

 

[the clockmaker]

I can fix ignorance.

In your case, you know about guns and don't think people should be allowed to have them. I can't fix that. Carry on.

Well mate, I don't see a difference of opinion as something that needs to be 'fixed'. And I believe that people should not have weapons outside of the hunting and sporting arenas, not that they shouldn't have them at all.

 

[AgedGrunt]

A list of gun regulations does not prove the extraordinary claim that regulating guns will not affect violence in crime-ridden areas.

..I'm simply expecting people who want to make arguments about how the law in our country should work to base their arguments on objective facts, not wild claims that feel good to say but lack objective evidence to support them.

Again, there is gun control in America (laws vary from state to state with extremes). There are areas to improve, but if you are going to propose something the burden of proof is on you to back it up. Further you need to provide substance of which cannot solely be based on objective "evidence".

Humans did not need statistics to prove that general access to rocket-propelled grenades is a bad idea. Thousands of years ago, no civilization needed data to suggest that murder be illegal. The world is not entirely objective; we derive conclusions not simply from numbers but critical thinking, reason, judgment and through a moral compass of what is right and wrong.

You didn't decide your positions based on numbers, you analyzed, interpreted, inferred and reasoned on a course of action. Generally I'm disagreeing with your thought process after going through my own from reading your posts ("evidence").

 

[Raytan941]

The eternal pursuit of freedom is anarcy.
The eternal pursuit of safety is order.
Id rather take order.

If that is what you really believe then where does your pursuit of safety end? Human beings being the flawed creatures we are and this world with both its natural and man made dangers it is imposable to ensure ones safety 100% of the time. But if safety and order is of utmost importance to you just what freedoms are you willing to give up to ensure the safe and orderly society you envision? If the government determined that it would be safer for you and your wife to not have children even though you want children and you will both be forcibly surgically altered so you cannot have children do you comply? If it was determined that democracy and freedom of speech were a danger to order and safety do you give up the right to vote and express your opinion? If it was decided that for public health and safety reasons all citizen's will be forcible enrolled in mandatory government run exercise programs, would you agree to go? If you and your family all contracted a highly contagious virus and for safety reasons it was decided that it would be best if you were all euthanized do you willingly agree to your slaughter?

Where does it end? The ultimate pursuit of safety my lead to order (though I would say oppression) but I don't want to live in that type of world and I bet if you really think about it you wouldn't want to live there either. I'll finish this off with one of my favorite Ben Franklin quotes,

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

 

[TornadoADV]

Not sure if people know this, but US citizens ARE allowed by federal law to purchase "Destructive Devices". Some states may ban their purchase, but if you are not in a state that bans them, you can buy anything from grenades to rounds for the main cannon of a tank by paying a tax.