Things besides guns we should ban to give ourselves the delusion of safety

Recommended Videos

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Indeed, alcohol is a pretty horrible drug.
The world would be far better off if we substituted it for cannabis.

However, I don't believe in banning drugs, as prohibition only drives the market value to a level where people will start killing eachother over it.

Guns not intended for hunting just strictly aren't necessary in a civilized society, and strict gun control correlates with lower gun crime.
The fact that you find firing guns entertaining is no argument for allowing people to own them.
I fine military grade artillery entertaining. For some reason, I'm not allowed to own that.
Yes, people will always find ways to kill other people if they really need to. Guns make it a whole lot easier though. Gun control mainly stops the kind of crimes where someone goes on a spree of some sort.
Also: Guns are extraordinarily effective for threatening more than one person at a time. Bank robberies and the like aren't very easy to do with a knife.
Not California, where its the most strict yet crime is still through the roof. Strict gun control doesn't walways work.

Banning them sure as hell won't. I saw through that bullshit first hand.
I highly doubt gun control in California would qualify as 'strict' by a definition from anyone outside of the US.
Strict gun control effectively takes guns away from criminals when done right.
Gun control that is not strict enough only makes it slightly more difficult for normal people to get a hold of, while criminals don't suffer much.

Plus, gun control on a state level in the US is pretty much useless.
Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by restricting gun access in your own state isn't very helpful when guns are a dime a dozen just a couple of miles in pretty much any direction.

To see any significant effect from strict gun control in the US, you would have to enact it on a federal level, and carefully enforce border control in regards to guns to your south.

And of course just plain banning guns won't work in a country like the US. It's saturated with the things. You'd just get a market chock full of illegal guns.
Guns, particularly handguns, need to be restricted through a gradual process, leaving less guns on the market altogether.
Not going to happen when criminals would just tunnel under the border, like they do now.

Banning guns would only end up as another prohibition just like alcohol, pot, etc. So basically its a moot point. Unlike Europe, organized crime tend to be more complex than the ones in Europe.

The worst are the Cartels that prop up the American gangs. With Cartels, any gun ban or cgun control would fall flat on its face.
Considering that other countries with gun control don't have that problem, I think you're incorrect.

Take the UK for example: Just like anywhere else, there are drugs everywhere. However, pretty much no crimes are done with guns.
Same with Norway: Oslo is considered the amphetamine (I think) capital of Europe by some. Yet, noone uses guns.

Restricting guns is not equivalent to banning drugs. It just doesn't work the same way because there isn't the same kind of demand.
Experience shows that gun control minimizes the black market while drug bans makes a black market flourish.
 

DugMachine

New member
Apr 5, 2010
2,566
0
0
All i'll say is if you've ever been mugged by some dude holding a knife it can be pretty damn scary. Then as I reach for my wallet I take out my trusty hand gun instead and point it right between his eyes and see the fear as he realizes he made an awful mistake. Pretty sure I stopped one criminal from trying that shit again, or at least thinking before he trys to mug someone.

I hate the "false sense of security" argument. I feel damn safe with my handgun. That story above is true btw and while I wouldn't have pulled the trigger if he lunged at me (would have just tried to knock him out with it probably), I still felt safer knowing I had the upper-hand.
 

PrinceFortinbras

New member
Jul 18, 2012
42
0
0
I will let the first part slide, since it really is irrelevant to the debate. I should probably have laid it to rest in my last post. My point was not that nukes and guns were identical, my point was that they both need to be strictly regulated.

Mathurin said:
Everyone has the power to kill, barehands or a broken bottle will do it, you just want to regulate the ease of it.

No rights are absolute, but regulation is a touchy subject because for the last 20-30 years gun control advocates have been dominated by the "gun are only good for killing" crowd, which makes it very hard to believe that any gun control advocate only wants registration and licensing, rather than merely wants to use them as an intermediary step before confiscation.

I dont mind a licensing scheme actually, I just demand the license be tied to something else, like say a High School diploma, to make certain the license doesnt become overly hard to get, or the list of licensees doesnt become a de facto list of firearm owners, that would be a violation of privacy.
Yes, I certianly do want to regulate the ease of it. And I think that is the reational thing to do. The power to kill a human being with the twitch of a finger is a power to great for everyone to have it.

May I ask what is the point of licensing if the list of licences is not a de facto list of firearm owners? The whole point of issuing liscences is to know for sure who owns guns and that they are up to that responsibility. A list of drivers licence holders should be a complete list of the people driving cars on public road. Otherwise it would be completely pointless.

I also think that such a licence should be a bit hard to get. "With great power comes great responsibility"...

Mathurin said:
Handguns were of very limited value in maintaining liberty, it was military arms that were important.
Both libya and the US revolution wouldnt necessarily have failed without outside intervention, it just would have taken a lot longer

Much has happened since the constitution was drafted (closer to 225 years ago, but no worries) yet nobody is saying freedom of the press or rights to be secure in our homes should be removed.
Much has changed, and the constitution can change as well, it just takes 2/3 to 3/4 of the nation to decide for that change, and its not happening yet.

everyone always thinks things have changed and the old ways just arent needed, and then they are needed, and arms will always be important for securing liberty in the long run.

There are people alive right now in europe who remember living under foreign occupation, and being forced to do labor for them, things havent changed as much as you might think, and they can change right back in a jiffy.
I really meant guns/arms of all sorts. I am not a native speaker of english, so I was not aware of that particular nuance, sorry. (I do know when the constitution was drafted, but brevity...)

Concerning Libya and the american revolution; that is a contra-factual it is really hard to meaningly discuss. Too short time has passed since the overthrow of Gaddafi to have any prespective on the matter. And the revolution is also really complex. I have heard scholars arguing both ways.

Nobody is saying freedom of the press or the rights to be secure in our homes should be removed because they have proven to be relevant in the modern age. However the second amendment has, under scrutiny, proven worthy of revision because it is not AS relevant. This has much to do with dramatic technological, and considerable political develpoment. And while the social situation has changed dramatically, warranting numerous amendments, the principles of freedom of speech/the press has stayed the same because they have proven to be great priciples, even in the modern world. The second amendment is not, in not only my opinion, a great priciple. I might have been, but it is not anymore.

The US constitution was a great political platform for it's time. It is however a politval document and as such it should always be the object of debate, critique, scrutiny and yes, change. Politics is about how to rule a society in the present. A 225(;-)) year old document has no value as scripture. It does have great value as a startingpoint for politcal discussion and development.

And I know that it CAN change, what we are discussing is whether you SHOULD change it, and I think you should.
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
puncturedrectum said:
Norway? Lenient gun laws?
Norway is just like the UK in the sense that not even the police carries firearms.
They have some lying in their cars or at the station to use if the situation calls for it, but you'll never see an officer carrying a piece.

You're not allowed to buy a gun without first getting a license that proves you know how to use a gun, have been through a course, and if you want to shoot large animals, that you are able to shoot with enough accuracy to humanely kill an animal.
You also have to send a request to the police asking for permission to buy a gun.
Even then, all the guns have restricted magazine capacities. I think it was two rounds, but don't quote me on that.

If you want to buy a pistol, you have to have been a member of a handgun club for 6 months prior, and you have to send a request to the police.
This is not a request that will be accepted if you have a record of violence or misconduct (or excessive drinking), and that you have no record of psychological problems. This also means that the police has a registry of every legal gun owner.

It is required that the firearm (or one of the vital components) is at all times kept in a specialized locker when the gun is not in use.
(This is a very important part. It quells the black market)

Hollow-tip, armor piercing, etc. ammunition is of course illegal, and all firearms that are normally used in war are illegal.
A gun may only be approved for sale if it has a respectable application area. Self defense does not count (except in certain cases, where polar bears for example are a threat).
This is one of the major differences between Norwegian and American gun legislation: It's never acceptable to fire at another person.

Pretty much no crimes in Norway involve firearms. It is simply too difficult for criminals to acquire guns for it to be worth it.

If you want to look at a country in a similar socioeconomic situation, but with laxer gun laws, look at Finland.
Not surprisingly, they've had trouble with shootings.
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Indeed, alcohol is a pretty horrible drug.
The world would be far better off if we substituted it for cannabis.

However, I don't believe in banning drugs, as prohibition only drives the market value to a level where people will start killing eachother over it.

Guns not intended for hunting just strictly aren't necessary in a civilized society, and strict gun control correlates with lower gun crime.
The fact that you find firing guns entertaining is no argument for allowing people to own them.
I fine military grade artillery entertaining. For some reason, I'm not allowed to own that.
Yes, people will always find ways to kill other people if they really need to. Guns make it a whole lot easier though. Gun control mainly stops the kind of crimes where someone goes on a spree of some sort.
Also: Guns are extraordinarily effective for threatening more than one person at a time. Bank robberies and the like aren't very easy to do with a knife.
Not California, where its the most strict yet crime is still through the roof. Strict gun control doesn't walways work.

Banning them sure as hell won't. I saw through that bullshit first hand.
I highly doubt gun control in California would qualify as 'strict' by a definition from anyone outside of the US.
Strict gun control effectively takes guns away from criminals when done right.
Gun control that is not strict enough only makes it slightly more difficult for normal people to get a hold of, while criminals don't suffer much.

Plus, gun control on a state level in the US is pretty much useless.
Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by restricting gun access in your own state isn't very helpful when guns are a dime a dozen just a couple of miles in pretty much any direction.

To see any significant effect from strict gun control in the US, you would have to enact it on a federal level, and carefully enforce border control in regards to guns to your south.

And of course just plain banning guns won't work in a country like the US. It's saturated with the things. You'd just get a market chock full of illegal guns.
Guns, particularly handguns, need to be restricted through a gradual process, leaving less guns on the market altogether.
Not going to happen when criminals would just tunnel under the border, like they do now.

Banning guns would only end up as another prohibition just like alcohol, pot, etc. So basically its a moot point. Unlike Europe, organized crime tend to be more complex than the ones in Europe.

The worst are the Cartels that prop up the American gangs. With Cartels, any gun ban or cgun control would fall flat on its face.
Considering that other countries with gun control don't have that problem, I think you're incorrect.

Take the UK for example: Just like anywhere else, there are drugs everywhere. However, pretty much no crimes are done with guns.
Same with Norway: Oslo is considered the amphetamine (I think) capital of Europe by some. Yet, noone uses guns.

Restricting guns is not equivalent to banning drugs. It just doesn't work the same way because there isn't the same kind of demand.
Experience shows that gun control minimizes the black market while drug bans makes a black market flourish.
Oh great the "but-but Europe" excuse.

Europe is not the world. Europe has a history of restricting weapons to the government since guns were first invented. Contrary to what you may believe, once you step outside Europe, it stops being Europe.

Since when does the UK deal with the Cartels on any actual level? If they did, their cops would look like Americans cops. If they were stupid enough not to, the cartels would send the entire country's police force back in caskets.

Cartels make all your points irrelevant. Cartels steal from government armories, sell the drugs, and deal the guns. America is in a different socio-econimic climate entirely. Cartels are the supply AND the demand. Any gun control laws while they are near would fall flat on its face.

I am sick and tired of hearing this fallacious excuse. Take some time to learn the political climate.

... and they call Americans disconnected with the world.
I was not talking about your point about cartels, was I?
I was pointing out why it's fallacious to think a prohibition of guns would inherently have the same effects as drug prohibition.
In either case have I never been advocating completely banning guns.

The differences between Europe and the US is exactly the reason why I've been making a point to say that gun control must be implemented gradually.

Cartels are a problem though. You could of course defuse them by lifting the drug prohibition, but everyone knows that's not going to happen.
A simpler idea might be to place more focus on stopping firearms that may be crossing the border, and perhaps create a buffer zone near the border where gun laws differ from the rest of the country.
Specifically, what I'm thinking about is keeping armouries and weapon factories away from the border states, implementing extremely strict gun control in these states (perhaps even a ban entirely), and keeping an armed police force supplemented in part from the rest of the country, focusing on cartel activity. And maybe ligthing up a teensy bit on the whole illegal immigrants issue.

There comes a point when smuggling weapons across the border just isn't worth it. This doesn't happen with drugs.
 

Mathurin

New member
Jul 1, 2008
147
0
0
PrinceFortinbras said:
I will let the first part slide, since it really is irrelevant to the debate. I should probably have laid it to rest in my last post. My point was not that nukes and guns were identical, my point was that they both need to be strictly regulated.

Mathurin said:
Everyone has the power to kill, barehands or a broken bottle will do it, you just want to regulate the ease of it.

No rights are absolute, but regulation is a touchy subject because for the last 20-30 years gun control advocates have been dominated by the "gun are only good for killing" crowd, which makes it very hard to believe that any gun control advocate only wants registration and licensing, rather than merely wants to use them as an intermediary step before confiscation.

I dont mind a licensing scheme actually, I just demand the license be tied to something else, like say a High School diploma, to make certain the license doesnt become overly hard to get, or the list of licensees doesnt become a de facto list of firearm owners, that would be a violation of privacy.
Yes, I certianly do want to regulate the ease of it. And I think that is the reational thing to do. The power to kill a human being with the twitch of a finger is a power to great for everyone to have it.
And I suggest its a power to great to be limited to the elites

PrinceFortinbras said:
May I ask what is the point of licensing if the list of licences is not a de facto list of firearm owners? The whole point of issuing liscences is to know for sure who owns guns and that they are up to that responsibility. A list of drivers licence holders should be a complete list of the people driving cars on public road. Otherwise it would be completely pointless.

I also think that such a licence should be a bit hard to get. "With great power comes great responsibility"...
The main reason for drivers licenses is to ensure education, that everyone on the road knows the rules by which they should operate, and how liability will fall if they dont.

I cant imagine why a gun license should be hard to get, I have been handling firearms safely and responsibly since I was younger than 12, I cant imagine why an average 18 year old would have difficulty understanding firearms function and safety, especially since they are simpler and easier to understand and operate than a car, which most 16 year olds are allowed to operate.
The only reason why would be a prejudice against guns/owners, or an intent to limit firearms ownership.

PrinceFortinbras said:
Mathurin said:
Handguns were of very limited value in maintaining liberty, it was military arms that were important.
Both libya and the US revolution wouldnt necessarily have failed without outside intervention, it just would have taken a lot longer

Much has happened since the constitution was drafted (closer to 225 years ago, but no worries) yet nobody is saying freedom of the press or rights to be secure in our homes should be removed.
Much has changed, and the constitution can change as well, it just takes 2/3 to 3/4 of the nation to decide for that change, and its not happening yet.

everyone always thinks things have changed and the old ways just arent needed, and then they are needed, and arms will always be important for securing liberty in the long run.

There are people alive right now in europe who remember living under foreign occupation, and being forced to do labor for them, things havent changed as much as you might think, and they can change right back in a jiffy.
I really meant guns/arms of all sorts. I am not a native speaker of english, so I was not aware of that particular nuance, sorry. (I do know when the constitution was drafted, but brevity...)
It wasnt important and I wasnt calling you out on it really. For informations sake, arms refers to any weapon, todays military arm is the assault rifle, in 1776 america it was the musket, bayonet, among other things.
The primary thing to realize is that the 2nd ammendment was not created to allow hunting, it was created because a persistent democratic nation requires the people to be capable of taking on the nations military, with a chance of being something other than slaughtered.

PrinceFortinbras said:
Concerning Libya and the american revolution; that is a contra-factual it is really hard to meaningly discuss. Too short time has passed since the overthrow of Gaddafi to have any prespective on the matter. And the revolution is also really complex. I have heard scholars arguing both ways.

Nobody is saying freedom of the press or the rights to be secure in our homes should be removed because they have proven to be relevant in the modern age. However the second amendment has, under scrutiny, proven worthy of revision because it is not AS relevant. This has much to do with dramatic technological, and considerable political develpoment. And while the social situation has changed dramatically, warranting numerous amendments, the principles of freedom of speech/the press has stayed the same because they have proven to be great priciples, even in the modern world. The second amendment is, in not only my opinion, a great priciple. I might have been, but it is not anymore.

The US constitution was a great political platform for it's time. It is however a politval document and as such it should always be the object of debate, critique, scrutiny and yes, change. Politics is about how to rule a society in the present. A 225(;-)) year old document has no value as scripture. It does have great value as a startingpoint for politcal discussion and development.

And I know that it CAN change, what we are discussing is whether you SHOULD change it, and I think you should.
The only reason free speech and free press have been proven neccesary is because government overstepped itself. The 2nd may not be relevant in the long run, only time will tell.

If you want to discuss or advocate changing the 2nd, I am all for that, I get very angry at people who instead want to ignore its existence, little realizing that every law they make violating the 2nd, set a precedent for violating the rest.

As for its value, I dont think a 60 year period of growth and wealth is enough to justify your new world view, people are still the same, they are just better fed and educated and have a stable world, for the moment. Politicians will still promise the world for power, and try to abuse it as much as possible.

In these discussions I like to mention 9/11, not in the way that you might think, but in a hypothetical, what if the planes had struck congress in full session, and the supreme court. Suddenly the only US government in existence would be George W. Bush, with both absolute authority and a really good excuse to enact martial law, would you trust him to give up power willingly?
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Indeed, alcohol is a pretty horrible drug.
The world would be far better off if we substituted it for cannabis.

However, I don't believe in banning drugs, as prohibition only drives the market value to a level where people will start killing eachother over it.

Guns not intended for hunting just strictly aren't necessary in a civilized society, and strict gun control correlates with lower gun crime.
The fact that you find firing guns entertaining is no argument for allowing people to own them.
I fine military grade artillery entertaining. For some reason, I'm not allowed to own that.
Yes, people will always find ways to kill other people if they really need to. Guns make it a whole lot easier though. Gun control mainly stops the kind of crimes where someone goes on a spree of some sort.
Also: Guns are extraordinarily effective for threatening more than one person at a time. Bank robberies and the like aren't very easy to do with a knife.
Not California, where its the most strict yet crime is still through the roof. Strict gun control doesn't walways work.

Banning them sure as hell won't. I saw through that bullshit first hand.
I highly doubt gun control in California would qualify as 'strict' by a definition from anyone outside of the US.
Strict gun control effectively takes guns away from criminals when done right.
Gun control that is not strict enough only makes it slightly more difficult for normal people to get a hold of, while criminals don't suffer much.

Plus, gun control on a state level in the US is pretty much useless.
Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by restricting gun access in your own state isn't very helpful when guns are a dime a dozen just a couple of miles in pretty much any direction.

To see any significant effect from strict gun control in the US, you would have to enact it on a federal level, and carefully enforce border control in regards to guns to your south.

And of course just plain banning guns won't work in a country like the US. It's saturated with the things. You'd just get a market chock full of illegal guns.
Guns, particularly handguns, need to be restricted through a gradual process, leaving less guns on the market altogether.
Not going to happen when criminals would just tunnel under the border, like they do now.

Banning guns would only end up as another prohibition just like alcohol, pot, etc. So basically its a moot point. Unlike Europe, organized crime tend to be more complex than the ones in Europe.

The worst are the Cartels that prop up the American gangs. With Cartels, any gun ban or cgun control would fall flat on its face.
Considering that other countries with gun control don't have that problem, I think you're incorrect.

Take the UK for example: Just like anywhere else, there are drugs everywhere. However, pretty much no crimes are done with guns.
Same with Norway: Oslo is considered the amphetamine (I think) capital of Europe by some. Yet, noone uses guns.

Restricting guns is not equivalent to banning drugs. It just doesn't work the same way because there isn't the same kind of demand.
Experience shows that gun control minimizes the black market while drug bans makes a black market flourish.
Oh great the "but-but Europe" excuse.

Europe is not the world. Europe has a history of restricting weapons to the government since guns were first invented. Contrary to what you may believe, once you step outside Europe, it stops being Europe.

Since when does the UK deal with the Cartels on any actual level? If they did, their cops would look like Americans cops. If they were stupid enough not to, the cartels would send the entire country's police force back in caskets.

Cartels make all your points irrelevant. Cartels steal from government armories, sell the drugs, and deal the guns. America is in a different socio-econimic climate entirely. Cartels are the supply AND the demand. Any gun control laws while they are near would fall flat on its face.

I am sick and tired of hearing this fallacious excuse. Take some time to learn the political climate.

... and they call Americans disconnected with the world.
I was not talking about your point about cartels, was I?
I was pointing out why it's fallacious to think a prohibition of guns would inherently have the same effects as drug prohibition.
In either case have I never been advocating completely banning guns.

The differences between Europe and the US is exactly the reason why I've been making a point to say that gun control must be implemented gradually.

Cartels are a problem though. You could of course defuse them by lifting the drug prohibition, but everyone knows that's not going to happen.
A simpler idea might be to place more focus on stopping firearms that may be crossing the border, and perhaps create a buffer zone near the border where gun laws differ from the rest of the country.
Specifically, what I'm thinking about is keeping armouries and weapon factories away from the border states, implementing extremely strict gun control in these states (perhaps even a ban entirely), and keeping an armed police force supplemented in part from the rest of the country.
Cartels have gone beyond drugs. They are now into sex trafficking, rackets, and other crimes. They are massive, and diversified. There is no way we can stop them now outside of an actual war.

The time when pot legalization would harm them is long gone. Especially since they have all the other drugs to make.

America has a litigious and drug culture. Do you seriously think that drugs beyond pot would be allowed? It would be a legal nightmare for both consumers and companies who produce them.

Not to mention companies are allowed to "cut" their product in America. Its the same reason cigarettes are so toxic, because companies added chemicals. So all the drugs would just end up like cigarettes. Even food and drinks are cut, and they aren't even drugs.

On top of all of this, there are many government armories. National guard, Naval, army, Marine, etc. California alone has plenty of them, numbering at 25. Not to mention the military bases have armories, and those bases are used for extensive testing. Most of the military bases in California are Naval bases, which effects half of America's navy.

So with taking away the armories, you take away military bases and take away America's largest testing ground for military objects, and effects America's naval effectiveness on one side.

Its much more complicated than most people want to deal with. So they just keep drugs illegal, and allow guns to the citizens but have them regulated.

The Cartel problem would require America or Mexico to step in. Both are too scared of the Cartels to do anything. If Mexico steps in, it looks at civil war. If America steps in, its military will face another Vietnam, but with more sadistic enemies.
I didn't mean legalizing just pot.
Legalize all the drugs is my stance. For several reasons that I don't think are necessary to outline here right now. I'm running short on time anyways.
But in any case, it would take a lot of profit out of the cartels' hands.
Of course legalization would be quite... turmoil-ous?... while it's being implemented, but a transitional period is almost unavoidable.
What I think might have been a good idea is if they started out legalizing soft drugs like cannabis and LSD, and introducing legal heroin treatment for addicts, from there easing into full legalization.
It's a pipe dream though.

And the whole 'cutting' thing... You really should do something about that regardless of whether you legalize drugs or not. Like, at the very least make it mandatory to clearly state on the packaging or something that the product is cut.

I'm of course not advocating taking away all armouries. Just either securing them more tightly, or moving them further away from the border. For example, California is a very oblong state. It wouldn't be necessary to move armouries all the way out of the state to create the kind of buffer-zone I'm proposing. Just northwards a bit, making sure to secure the southernmost ones extensively.

In the situation the US is currently in, if one were to implement strict gun control, this would have to happen on a federal level, and it would require a unified and focused effort, for a while easing up on other issues like illegal immigration perhaps, to free up some resources. Redirecting military spendings a wee bit maybe to go towards firearm restriction in the border area.

In any case, I'm going to have to cut this debate short around here. Need to go to my driving lessons.
 

PrinceFortinbras

New member
Jul 18, 2012
42
0
0
Mathurin said:
And I suggest its a power to great to be limited to the elites
What does that even mean? I am arguing for state control over fire arms. That would mean that elected officials (that means your representatives) decide that there has to be rules in place so that the only people allowed to have such arms are responsible, sane, rational people who needs them, and that we have a regestry of who these people are. If that means that only "the elite" will have guns then that's surely a good idea, no?


PrinceFortinbras said:
May I ask what is the point of licensing if the list of licences is not a de facto list of firearm owners?
You did not answer this question. Did you mean that the point of licences should be education, rules of operation etc.? I think that some of the reasoning behind such licences is that we want to know who own firearms, and if the list is not complete it's usefulness as such is very limited. And I don't see how the police knowing that you own a gun is more of a threat to your privacy then they knowing that you own a car.

Mathurin said:
I cant imagine why a gun license should be hard to get, I have been handling firearms safely and responsibly since I was younger than 12, I cant imagine why an average 18 year old would have difficulty understanding firearms function and safety, especially since they are simpler and easier to understand and operate than a car, which most 16 year olds are allowed to operate.
The only reason why would be a prejudice against guns/owners, or an intent to limit firearms ownership.
The whole point of my reasoning is that I want to limit firearms ownership. That is what I have been arguing for all this time. And I think I have made my reasons for wanting that quite clear.

Mathurin said:
The primary thing to realize is that the 2nd ammendment was not created to allow hunting, it was created because a persistent democratic nation requires the people to be capable of taking on the nations military, with a chance of being something other than slaughtered.
But the US has the most powerful professional army in the world now so what is the point in keeping this system alive? Your chance of survival (least of all victory!) against your own government is almost zero.

If your interpretation of the constitution is correct the second amendment is utterly outdated.

Mathurin said:
The only reason free speech and free press have been proven neccesary is because government overstepped itself.
That is part of the reason but far from the only reason. Free speech is for spreading ideas, discussing and reaching for the truth. That truth might be completly irrelavant to the government.


Mathurin said:
In these discussions I like to mention 9/11, not in the way that you might think, but in a hypothetical, what if the planes had struck congress in full session, and the supreme court. Suddenly the only US government in existence would be George W. Bush, with both absolute authority and a really good excuse to enact martial law, would you trust him to give up power willingly?
You don't have a better system in place if that happens? Even so, what good would your guns really be if he did do that?
 

Bvenged

New member
Sep 4, 2009
1,203
0
0
Knobody13 said:
I believe that a gun is the ultimate symbol of power. A person with a gun will always have power over a person without, and to make laws that ban people from having guns is to make laws that ban civilians from having power. The United States is a country founded for the people by the people. The power should rest with all of us equally
Genuine question: Who deserves to have that power over another individual? Does this mean we should all have guns? Wouldn't it be safer for us all to not have guns unless we're, say, a jewellery shop owner or a bank manager who are more likely to encounter the unfair power-balance?

Guns are fine for personal defence against life-threatening situations, but how many times do these situations occur and how many are caused by guns acquired legally in the first place?

I'm not saying "ban guns everywhere" or "give everyone a gun", I'm saying they should be much more regulated. Only trained individuals who pass regular annual firearm checks - in a position when it would do them well to have a lethal weapon for protection, recreation or business, where the weapons is properly managed - should be allowed guns.

And there are non-lethal weapons useful for incapacitation against malevolent gun-wielders. I could buy that pistol as a PDW and stuff it under my bed, or keep it in my inside jacket pocket in case I ever end up in a life-threatening situation where that power is required - or I could buy a taser, or a can of pepper spray, or a number of other non-lethal defensive measures, to overpower an individual with a gun.

There are safer alternatives that are just as effective, whilst reducing the number of guns in the wrong hands on the streets.
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
Mathurin said:
NightHawk21 said:
Mathurin said:
NightHawk21 said:
Personally I don't see why any civilian in the states or otherwise should be allowed to own anything other than a hunting rifle or a pistol. There is absolutely no reason for ownership of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like. Of course the argument comes up: "Well what if I want to use it recreational purposes?" Its a fair enough point, but then I would say that every gun range needs to be registered with the government and then it can keep a small stock of these restricted guns for people to shoot on site.
You dont see why?

Here is a hint, the 2nd ammendment was not created to protect the right to hunt.


Its more than that though, I prefer military firearm designs over civilian ones, even for hunting.
They are stronger and better suited to rough treatment, they are easier to breakdown and clean. Parts, ammunition and accessories are cheap and easy to find.

I dont understand why people choose 'civilian' firearms over military surplus or those heavily based on military design.

Civilian is in quotes because the dividing line between civilian and military firearms is much harder to pinpoint than you might think.
As a non-American let me be honest when I say the second amendment means jack shit to me. This is not the 19th century anymore, times have changed and proposals of the past that made sense then might not make sense now.
It doesnt have to mean anything to you, until it means nothing to 2/3rd to 3/4 of the US, it has force of law.
I think you'd find if you managed to run an unbiased survey of all the people in America a lot of them would agree that banning all non-hunting weapons would be better for the country than not. Problem is that the media no doubt would run this up as some sort of government vs the people situation and soon after taking your guns they'll take your children, other freedoms, or other nonsense.

Mathurin said:
NightHawk21 said:
As for the point you raised about hunting; just because something is easier and more suited to the job does not mean that it is what everyone should be using. There are some methods that have the potential to cause great harm (whether to the environment or something else), when they provide a very small benefit over the safer product.
Are you suggesting that using military arms to hunt greatly harms the environment, as opposed to 'civilian' weapons

I think you are trying to suggest that military arms cause great harm to other human beings. Except you would hopefully have states for that.
So, tell me, how many assault rifles, or rifles of any type, are used in homicides on a yearly basis.
Statistics or stats, but not states. No I don't have that kind of information, because as you can imagine there really isn't a classification system in the US that distinguishes a hunting rifle from a military rifle, and the kind of information that you are asking for is not easy to come by. I can say that if we look at the average between 1976-2004 about 1/3 of all homicides were committed by firearms other than handguns. I suspect that if you excluded all regular homicides and only examined mass homicides you'd see that number grow even higher.
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,185
0
0
Kinguendo said:
scw55 said:
Lumber Barber said:
Guns in the United States are perfectly legal, but Kinder Eggs are illegal and could result in a 300$ fine.
Thought you'd like to know.
You can kill a man by forcing him to stick half a plastic capsule down their throat.
I think they are more afraid of the toy you have to build yourself... there could be anything in that tiny capsule! It may look like a dinosaur but when you look at that small instruction manual it is clearly telling you how to make copious amounts of Mustard Gas with household materials.

I had plenty of Kinder Eggs when I was a child, as a result I died many times.
Most serious injury I sustained from a toy was treading on one barefoot. I suppose you could argue you might choke on the toy. But in honesty the thing I was sticking in my mouse were lego techniq bits because they were crunchy or chewy if a tire, or I chewed K'nex rods because they were very good to use to dislodge loose milk-teeth.
 

Leadfinger

New member
Apr 21, 2010
293
0
0
ravenshrike said:
Leadfinger said:
Japan. Only 22 killings involving firearms in 2007. 22 for the entire country. See, strict gun control laws do work.
And yet, higher suicide rate than America. Not to mention small island with pathological hierarchy issues. Saying that gun control has any major bearing on it is idiotic.
Denying that Japan's gun control laws have anything to do with the lack of guns there seems farfetched, but I suspect from your comments that you aren't an expert on Japan, or gun control, or logic for that matter.
 

AngloDoom

New member
Aug 2, 2008
2,461
0
0
Mathurin said:
I was simply searching for a piece of your property to control.
What's the big problem with controlling something dangerous? The restrictions I have mentioned allow the owner to have a weapon in which to defend themselves in their own home and I personally can't see what else you'd want the gun in your home for. I don't think shooting Coke cans on a fence is a responsible use of a weapon. I also don't believe that placing a restriction on something is inherently bad when it is designed only to end life. You cannot compare a gun to any other object in your home because no other object in your home was specifically manufactured for the express purpose of causing bodily damage. I personally don't think those belong in civilian hands, and if they are to be they should be under heavy regulation.

Mathurin said:
I was talking about the list of potential suspects statement, you seemed to be assuming that the only guns in existence will be the ones locked in boxes.

Since you indicate thats not true then all you want to do is harrass gun owners with excessive regulation.
Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I want to do. No sarcasm, no joke: I want the use of lethal weapons to be something you shit yourself over. It shouldn't be casual, it should be worrying, stressful, and something you can't do on the spur of the moment. Again, personal differences, but I'd rather make obtaining a gun and using it an absolute nightmare so less people are likely to come home drunk and stupid and even consider that they could use their gun without someone noticing.

Mathurin said:
Its very simple, the modern right to speech came about through use of arms. Without them it wouldnt exist, and in many nations it still doesnt. So dont take it as granted.
For centuries nobles had suppressed the popuation by having all the arms.
You may be satisfied that those days are gone, but I'm not, and until the population of the united states votes to remove the 2nd ammendment from the constitution, then it still has force of law.

Would you support ignoring part of your nations constitution?
Did it? You'll have to educate me further on the topic.

What I do doubt, however, is that the many people purchasing firearms in the US are currently doing it in case of some sort of Orwellian crackdown. I also doubt you have purchased weapons for this reason too. Further, I doubt that concealed handguns are capable of toppling an evil government with access to such things as bodyguards with automatic weapons, missiles, and an army to use them.

Taking this into account, would you say the next sensible step is to allow citizens to purchase military-grade weapons? I'm no being rhetorical here - the argument that we need to defend ourselves from our government, to me, begs the question of how much do we empower the public.

Mathurin said:
I dont feel the need to constantly carry a lethal weapon.
Well, I suppose technically I do carry a knife, which qualifies as a lethal weapon, but I carry it for utility, cutting open stuff, so I dont count it.
Speaking of carry though, its interesting to find the statistics coming out of the concealed carry programs, you know, the ones showing that concealed carry license holders rarely even get citations, much less shoot people.
Meaning your intent to control legal gun owners wont end up doing anything but harassing them.
No, I wouldn't consider a utility knife to be a problem either. However, I've yet to see someone shoot open a packaged container.

Again, my idea is indeed to pretty much make it awkward as shit to own a gun. I'm fine with that. Personally I think the problem lies in American attitudes to weapons, not the weapons. However, seeing as that viewpoint isn't going to change overnight I'd want to make it awkward, if not impossible, for individuals to get weapons until attitudes change. I wouldn't give children guns and then begin teaching them to use them responsibly.

Also, again my point is that 'criminals' can get bigger and bagger guns than you can legally purchase - surely the next logical step from your standpoint is to allow civilians to get these bigger and badder guns?
 

Mathurin

New member
Jul 1, 2008
147
0
0
PrinceFortinbras said:
Mathurin said:
And I suggest its a power to great to be limited to the elites
What does that even mean? I am arguing for state control over fire arms. That would mean that elected officials (that means your representatives) decide that there has to be rules in place so that the only people allowed to have such arms are responsible, sane, rational people who needs them, and that we have a regestry of who these people are. If that means that only "the elite" will have guns then that's surely a good idea, no?
The government is usually composed of the elites, even my elected representatives are usually from the elite class, only their wealth allows them to run for office, with few. I am no happier allowing these people control of arms or speech than I am a king of old, thats the point of a constitution, limiting their power.

PrinceFortinbras said:
PrinceFortinbras said:
May I ask what is the point of licensing if the list of licences is not a de facto list of firearm owners?
You did not answer this question. Did you mean that the point of licences should be education, rules of operation etc.? I think that some of the reasoning behind such licences is that we want to know who own firearms, and if the list is not complete it's usefulness as such is very limited. And I don't see how the police knowing that you own a gun is more of a threat to your privacy then they knowing that you own a car.
Yes, meant to say the point of licensing drivers is to educate them, not to create a list of drivers or car owners.

I know you want make a list of those who own firearms, why dont I want the police to know I have a gun.
2 reasons

first, cops are jerks, letting them now I have a gun before they knock on my door can turn routine questioning into an exercise in suspicion.

second, because one excellent reason for creating such a list is to later be able to round up all the guns.

PrinceFortinbras said:
Mathurin said:
I cant imagine why a gun license should be hard to get, I have been handling firearms safely and responsibly since I was younger than 12, I cant imagine why an average 18 year old would have difficulty understanding firearms function and safety, especially since they are simpler and easier to understand and operate than a car, which most 16 year olds are allowed to operate.
The only reason why would be a prejudice against guns/owners, or an intent to limit firearms ownership.
The whole point of my reasoning is that I want to limit firearms ownership. That is what I have been arguing for all this time. And I think I have made my reasons for wanting that quite clear.
But if you ensure proper education then what further need would you have for limiting firearms ownership.

PrinceFortinbras said:
Mathurin said:
The primary thing to realize is that the 2nd ammendment was not created to allow hunting, it was created because a persistent democratic nation requires the people to be capable of taking on the nations military, with a chance of being something other than slaughtered.
But the US has the most powerful professional army in the world now so what is the point in keeping this system alive? Your chance of survival (least of all victory!) against your own government is almost zero.

If your interpretation of the constitution is correct the second amendment is utterly outdated.
Yep, its powerful, but its also tiny. And like all miliataries fighting insurgencies, they will have a hard time finding targets, and their own people will defect rather than fire.


PrinceFortinbras said:
Mathurin said:
The only reason free speech and free press have been proven neccesary is because government overstepped itself.
That is part of the reason but far from the only reason. Free speech is for spreading ideas, discussing and reaching for the truth. That truth might be completly irrelavant to the government.
And if the government really wants to shut down that speech, all your laws will do nothing.

PrinceFortinbras said:
Mathurin said:
In these discussions I like to mention 9/11, not in the way that you might think, but in a hypothetical, what if the planes had struck congress in full session, and the supreme court. Suddenly the only US government in existence would be George W. Bush, with both absolute authority and a really good excuse to enact martial law, would you trust him to give up power willingly?
You don't have a better system in place if that happens? Even so, what good would your guns really be if he did do that?
Nobody has a better system in place if this happens, if enough congressmen die then congress cannot reach a plurality and it is dissolved, new elections take time and effort, effort which might wel be blocked by the new 'king'
Thats the issue, how much trust do you have in your democratically elected leaders to act in the populations best interest and against their own personal best interest.
I have none. I dont know about your nation, but in mine election cycles are filled with unsavory practices all in the search for power.
Obama might give it up, in time, but Bush would hold onto power for as long as he could.

Guns would allow us to attempt to fight. Citizens would have an option other than being peacefully slaughtered or silently enslaved.

I dont mind if you want to be disarmed, subject to the government rule even when its wrong, but why does it bother you that I dont.
 

Mathurin

New member
Jul 1, 2008
147
0
0
AngloDoom said:
Mathurin said:
I was simply searching for a piece of your property to control.
What's the big problem with controlling something dangerous? The restrictions I have mentioned allow the owner to have a weapon in which to defend themselves in their own home and I personally can't see what else you'd want the gun in your home for. I don't think shooting Coke cans on a fence is a responsible use of a weapon. I also don't believe that placing a restriction on something is inherently bad when it is designed only to end life. You cannot compare a gun to any other object in your home because no other object in your home was specifically manufactured for the express purpose of causing bodily damage. I personally don't think those belong in civilian hands, and if they are to be they should be under heavy regulation.
Humans are dangerous, guns are just tools.

Very few modern firearms are designed to inflict bodily damage, well the ones in civilian hands anyway, they are designed to target shoot

Shooting cans is actually very good target practice btw.

AngloDoom said:
Mathurin said:
I was talking about the list of potential suspects statement, you seemed to be assuming that the only guns in existence will be the ones locked in boxes.

Since you indicate thats not true then all you want to do is harrass gun owners with excessive regulation.
Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I want to do. No sarcasm, no joke: I want the use of lethal weapons to be something you shit yourself over. It shouldn't be casual, it should be worrying, stressful, and something you can't do on the spur of the moment. Again, personal differences, but I'd rather make obtaining a gun and using it an absolute nightmare so less people are likely to come home drunk and stupid and even consider that they could use their gun without someone noticing.
You have shown yourself sir.
You arent interested in crime, you know gun crime will still occur, and probably in similar quantity, all you want to do is punish a segment of society. Not for a rational reason, because you are scared.



AngloDoom said:
Mathurin said:
Its very simple, the modern right to speech came about through use of arms. Without them it wouldnt exist, and in many nations it still doesnt. So dont take it as granted.
For centuries nobles had suppressed the popuation by having all the arms.
You may be satisfied that those days are gone, but I'm not, and until the population of the united states votes to remove the 2nd ammendment from the constitution, then it still has force of law.

Would you support ignoring part of your nations constitution?
Did it? You'll have to educate me further on the topic.

What I do doubt, however, is that the many people purchasing firearms in the US are currently doing it in case of some sort of Orwellian crackdown. I also doubt you have purchased weapons for this reason too. Further, I doubt that concealed handguns are capable of toppling an evil government with access to such things as bodyguards with automatic weapons, missiles, and an army to use them.
No, I havent had to purchase weapons for this, I already have them.

I am not concerned with your doubts, success is never certain.

AngloDoom said:
Taking this into account, would you say the next sensible step is to allow citizens to purchase military-grade weapons? I'm no being rhetorical here - the argument that we need to defend ourselves from our government, to me, begs the question of how much do we empower the public.
To an extent actualy, a somewhat modified version of the standard assault rifle issued to US troops is available for purchase in most gun stores, thats enough for me.
The Free Syrian army has AKs against tanks and helicopters, and while its too early to say they are winning, they are definitely doing something.



AngloDoom said:
Mathurin said:
I dont feel the need to constantly carry a lethal weapon.
Well, I suppose technically I do carry a knife, which qualifies as a lethal weapon, but I carry it for utility, cutting open stuff, so I dont count it.
Speaking of carry though, its interesting to find the statistics coming out of the concealed carry programs, you know, the ones showing that concealed carry license holders rarely even get citations, much less shoot people.
Meaning your intent to control legal gun owners wont end up doing anything but harassing them.
No, I wouldn't consider a utility knife to be a problem either. However, I've yet to see someone shoot open a packaged container.
Its not a utility knife, its big black scary military style knife (still a folding knife though). I use it as a utility knife.



AngloDoom said:
Again, my idea is indeed to pretty much make it awkward as shit to own a gun. I'm fine with that. Personally I think the problem lies in American attitudes to weapons, not the weapons. However, seeing as that viewpoint isn't going to change overnight I'd want to make it awkward, if not impossible, for individuals to get weapons until attitudes change. I wouldn't give children guns and then begin teaching them to use them responsibly.

Ah, comparison of the citizens of a nation to children, how revealingly patronizing.
Its sad really that our big daddy government hasnt taken all our guns and said "no, you are collectively not responsible enough for that"


AngloDoom said:
Also, again my point is that 'criminals' can get bigger and bagger guns than you can legally purchase - surely the next logical step from your standpoint is to allow civilians to get these bigger and badder guns?
Actually crime is generally committed with pistols, the criminal arms race you speak of is limited by concealment, so they can access them, but they rarely if ever use them.