75 replies to this topic

[RedDragon]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 25 July 2016 - 02:21 AM, said:

1. Then why do you think our nation is a democracy when the populace vote really doesn't mean that much since the Electoral vote controls our Presidency? The electoral vote in the USA basically is what controls everything in the Presidential voting process. Every person in the USA could not vote for President but as long as the electoral vote comes through a President will be chosen, and if every person voted for one President, the electoral vote can instantly determine the opposite candidate as President.

Btw. I'm perfectly with you there, I also don't think the US is a real democracy At least not one fit for modern times. Like many other things (the gun laws for example, to get back on topic), this stems from older times where circumstances where different and things like the archaic voting mechanism still used today had a place. But times are changing and laws should likewise to stay up to date.

[Quinn Allard]

You lose all credibility the second you talk about "banning assault weapons". A semi-automatic AR15 is not an "assault weapon". Assault Weapons are already banned in America. Secondly, anyone who can, of free will, vote for or support Hillary Clinton is not capable mentally to debate even the most amateur politically charged conversation.

[Heffay]

I hate the "rise up against the government" arguments put out for gun rights, because although it can contain an (incredibly minor) element of truth, it's really a straw man argument and really has absolutely nothing to do with the right to own guns.

Owning a gun is no different than owning anything else. Responsible use is perfectly fine, and people who can use them responsibly should be allowed to own them. And yes, that even includes full auto, which there is a path to ownership in the states. I'm perfectly fine with that. The restrictions on owning them are pretty significant, and work just fine.

People can have a million reasons to own a gun, and it's all irrelevant. Even if you disagree with any one particular reason, there is no way to successfully argue that there is *no* legitimate reason to own a gun, and therefore to start making restrictions based on why people should have them is ultimately going to fail. Keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Not the people who should.

I'll state it again: Prohibition is a horrible basis to make something illegal. Deal with the root causes, not the symptoms.

[Quinn Allard]

Make it illegal? Right, because that totally worked in other countries and for drugs right? Switzerland has highest gun ownership per capita, and the least gun related homicide per capita. Explain that libs.

[Heffay]

Quinn Allard, on 25 July 2016 - 07:04 AM, said:

You lose all credibility the second you talk about "banning assault weapons". A semi-automatic AR15 is not an "assault weapon". Assault Weapons are already banned in America.

Assault weapons aren't banned in the US. And yes, an AR-15 is an assault weapon (and definitely not banned), but it is not an assault rifle (which I think you mean, and also aren't banned; just heavily regulated). However, such terms are really meaningless and although it does help to classify weapons based on discrete categories. There is no reason to ban assault weapons for people who can responsibly handle them.

[RedDragon]

Heffay, on 25 July 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

Keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Not the people who should.

I'd go so far to claim that this is not possible. A very great deal of people will be perfectly responsible all their life until they get to some point where they just snap and decide to go on a killing spree or do something else stupid. It's the same with a driver's license. People have to do a test and most make it through that test. So basically they are seen as people "who should have a car". Until one day when they decide to do a street race. Or text while driving. Or get drunk and drive home.
As long as there ARE weapons, there WILL be accidents and casualties.
Many people who go on a killing spree are described as having been perfectly normal and peacuful before the shooting. I.e. those people who you say "should have guns".

While it would be nice to know that only responsible people can attain firearms, this is very delusional IMO and effectively impossible to guarantee.

[Catalina Steiner]

[mod]Moved to "Jettisoned Communication".[/mod]

[Heffay]

RedDragon, on 25 July 2016 - 07:28 AM, said:

I'd go so far to claim that this is not possible. A very great deal of people will be perfectly responsible all their life until they get to some point where they just snap and decide to go on a killing spree or do something else stupid. It's the same with a driver's license. People have to do a test and most make it through that test. So basically they are seen as people "who should have a car". Until one day when they decide to do a street race. Or text while driving. Or get drunk and drive home.
As long as there ARE weapons, there WILL be accidents and casualties.
Many people who go on a killing spree are described as having been perfectly normal and peacuful before the shooting. I.e. those people who you say "should have guns".

While it would be nice to know that only responsible people can attain firearms, this is very delusional IMO and effectively impossible to guarantee.

Yes, but there are people that shouldn't have them, like those convicted of domestic violence. It's true that people can *always* get something they really want (see: drugs, the mass shootings in Europe) no matter how illegal it is, which is why Prohibition doesn't work. But there is still no good reason to keep them out of the hands of people who can responsibly use them.

[t Khrist]

Awe.. I didn't think this had gotten that off-topic or nonconstructive..

Otherwise I wouldn't have read to the end.

Edited by t Khrist, 25 July 2016 - 12:42 PM.

[Dee Eight]

Quinn Allard, on 25 July 2016 - 07:10 AM, said:

Make it illegal? Right, because that totally worked in other countries and for drugs right? Switzerland has highest gun ownership per capita, and the least gun related homicide per capita. Explain that libs.

That's only among swiss citizens, and especally among those serving in the military/militia (conscription and military service is mandantory for males 20 to 34) and thus required to keep their service weapons at home. Foreigners living in switzerland are under very strict gun laws however. Its quite common the see swiss citizens on their way to their military duty assignment, or coming from it, in plain clothes, but carrying their weapons while doing day-to-day tasks...like grocery shopping...

http://yoda.densan.c...swissmarket.jpg

Gun laws in switzerland...

https://en.wikipedia..._in_Switzerland

As to the per capita... the highest ownership rate is the USA, by a wide margin (more guns than people). Here in Canada, we're fairly well armed... when the federal long gun registry still existed, there was about 6.5 million registered rifles and shotguns for 33 million people. Handgun ownership is a rarer thing here, but we do have some goofy laws on what is or isn't a firearm. Blackpowder muzzle loaders for example, do not classify as firearms, so you don't need a permit to own one... however you DO need a permit to buy the projectiles and powder to make them work. Centerfire semi-automatic weapons with a removable magazine have a capacity limit of 10 for handguns and 5 for rifles/carbines/shotguns. But that's only for the caliber they and their magazine was designed to use. Thus we have situations like... various carbines that are chambered for handgun calibers and which will accept handgun magazines as well. Also stuff like the 6.5 Grendel caliber, which uses standard AR15/M16 STANAG mags and even with a floorplate limiter installed to hold five 6.5 rounds, will hold 14 5.56 rounds, and work fine with a 5.56 rifle/carbine and still perfectly legal because the magazine is labeled and sold for 6.5 ammo. There's no limit for rimfire calibers however (so 50 round banana mags in a ruger 10/22 are perfectly fine) and the definition for a firearm includes the fact it has to exceed 6.7 joules of muzzle energy AND 500 fps of muzzle velocity (has to meet both conditions). Thus all air guns sold here end up sold as 495 fps or less. And again with the magazine limit bit... belt feeds are not considered magazines, so at least for a time, one canadian arms dealer was selling SEMI-AUTO-ONLY Browning M2s with the M3 tripod, and the butterfly spade grip triggers for about $10k each. You could sit on the back lawn of your farm, and fire off around 60 shots a minute, for 3+ minutes with a 200 round belt, knocking trees and exploding gophers a mile away if you wanted to.

Edited by Dee Eight, 25 July 2016 - 04:40 PM.

[B0oN]

Ban knives ?
Only if not used for cooking .

Look, I find all the hilariousness around guns and regulating them pretty stupid when contemplating the destructive potential of an unarmed human .
People dont need guns to hurt each others ... a pencil is enough to literally kill people .

Ban humans, that might be the only way out of this .

[Karl Streiger]

Hey marack I think we already concluded that people who want harm others will do it and no regulation will stop it.
Good Datamining including dark net can do the job but well again we are at a point were people sucks because no human should have access to private information of others.

Anyhow the issue with easy accessible guns is the danger of short living mental breakdowns - we all need a weapon locker and finger print reader on the stock of guns - that check drugs, alcohol heck even Hormons (couldn't computer read faces?) when you behave outside your norm you are not able to get this gun.
Another thing ammunition - how much ammunition do you need to 'protect' you? A single mag or max 9 roundsshould be ok?

When you go hunting - you might buy your ammunition at licenced sellers and only limited amounts (again data mining to prevent bad things)

I accept that weapon regulation by banning guns would not work well enough - but why not to reduce the danger or the damage possible?

About knifes your hands a bottle - yes the can kill humans but do you really dare to compare - give me my old G3 and I can kill or harm ~20 people in almost 20seconds - try to do this with a knife - maybe when you stab the bus driver when driving 60miles an hour?

As said humans are the problem we are all sane here at the moment no one of us would harm another person just because it is cool - but in the end we are hardly sentinent creatures - and like creatures our behavior in a group or with the tools to be intimidating are completely different

[Heffay]

Karl Streiger, on 25 July 2016 - 08:38 PM, said:

I accept that weapon regulation by banning guns would not work well enough - but why not to reduce the danger or the damage possible?

Because the hugely vastly crazy percentage of guns that are owned by responsible people aren't a danger to anyone, no matter how many rounds they carry or how scary they look.

You're telling 99.99% of the people out there it doesn't matter how responsible or good they are. They should just be criminals.

You can't sell that message. If you look at it strictly from a risk analysis, there are FAR more ways to spend your time and money that will save FAR more lives than banning assault weapons or limiting magazines to 10 rounds. You're trying to solve a problem that requires a careful multi-prong effort by just smashing it with a sledgehammer.

But you know this. You've been told a dozen times so far why it's a bad idea, but because it's not something that is important to *you*, you have no problem getting rid of it. That's a horrible policy, and you should really step back and think about how this can be applied to sooooo many other things in life that may actually be important to you.

edit: Here, let's try a simple exercise in acceptance and empathy: I want you to say "Heffay, you are a responsible gun owner and I accept that you should be allowed to have all these items. I don't have the same interest as you do with regard to sport shooting or hunting, but I realize it's important to you."

Edited by Heffay, 25 July 2016 - 09:05 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Heffay, you are a responsible gun owner and I accept that you should be allowed to have all these items. I don't have the same interest as you do with regard to sport shooting or hunting, but I realize it's important to you.

Or at least responsible in 99.99% of all cases.
I thought I already said such things
And I'm pretty sure this also is fiting for 99.75% of all legal gun owners in the US.

And car accidents is killing more people.
So we have a huge death toll on our highways so the best way is to prohibit cars that move faster than 100kph.
Of course it wouldn't work - accident deaths would still happen but maybe the number would be reduced.

Maybe this is a good metaphor to weapon regulation. What do you think

[Karl Streiger]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 25 July 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

No really because car accidents are usually caused by two things: drunk driving, reckless driving, but generally it is not intentional.

Shootings are caused by people who plan to kill and injure others.

99% of people in car accidents don't intend to get their car turned into mulch. 99% of shooters do intend on putting a bullet through someone's brain.

So you are disagreeing with Heffay?

The question is what is intentional? When you are standing at the kitchen making dinner looking out of the window seeing your kids come home and a car isn't able to stop fast enough. It doesn't matter in this moment who is guilt who is not.
The chances that the driver of this car dies in the next seconds would increase exponential when i have a gun at my hand.

I know its extreme example alone the thinking makes me angry - and gun or not the driver would be seriously injured if such will ever happen to me. But it also should show you one thing - it doesn't matter how sane you are - we can all break

[Heffay]

Karl Streiger, on 25 July 2016 - 09:59 PM, said:

Heffay, you are a responsible gun owner and I accept that you should be allowed to have all these items. I don't have the same interest as you do with regard to sport shooting or hunting, but I realize it's important to you.

Or at least responsible in 99.99% of all cases.
I thought I already said such things
And I'm pretty sure this also is fiting for 99.75% of all legal gun owners in the US.

And car accidents is killing more people.
So we have a huge death toll on our highways so the best way is to prohibit cars that move faster than 100kph.
Of course it wouldn't work - accident deaths would still happen but maybe the number would be reduced.

Maybe this is a good metaphor to weapon regulation. What do you think

The best way to prevent deaths on the highways from cars isn't limiting the speed. It's self driving cars. Which, fortunately, will also solve drunk driving and texting while driving issues.

A 100 kph speed limit is another attempt at controlling behavior that doesn't actually solve the problem. It may actually make it worse. For example, when laws against texting and driving were enacted, the number of texting based accidents *increased*. It's because the law didn't stop people from doing it. They just moved the phone down to their lap so they wouldn't be seen, meaning their eyes were even further from the road.

So let's move 5 years down the road when self driving cars are much more common. Should someone in a fully autonomous car not be allowed to text? The person in a self driving car who is texting *is* being responsible, and should be allowed to use their phones any way they want. Oh, and have an assault beer or two, because who cares, the car is driving and probably doing a better job than the person would be stone cold sober.

And yes, we can all break. But the people getting shot in this country generally aren't the responsible gun owners snapping and shooting people. You can give a hypothetical anecdote like that, but it doesn't change the fact that it just *doesn't* happen at any meaningful level.

You're attempting to cater towards people's fears to try to sell your point. Keep in mind that this is something Trump does as well. It's the basis of his whole campaign. I'd like to think you're better than Trump.