Gun Bans

[Caninope]

Whatever. I was talking to Big Jim P, not to you.

Caninope is right.

I'll take a gander at why you agree with me. I get the feeling that you, like me, think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with people like my dad simply because he has two hunting rifles and three hunting shotguns. You think there's absolutely nothing wrong with people like my granddad with multiple shotguns, rifles, and handguns (and had more before they were stolen about a decade ago). Both are law abiding citizens, and you (like me) do not think there is anything wrong with them simply because they own so many guns.

I could give a list of reasons why a person would dislike my dad (as I suppose every son could), but nowhere on that list is the fact that he owns multiple firearms.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Cars kill more people than guns. By a HUGE factor. If you really wanted to protect life by banning shit you know nothing about, it would be more effective to ban them than guns.

Not so huge, pal. Gun deaths are on their way to surpass car deaths. I'm not in favor of banning cars, nor am for banning all guns. It's more effective to regulate things that causes extreme death toll like tobacco, drugs, and alcohol. But it's far more important to regulate the fucking shit out of weapons too, especially firearms. Prohibition doesn't do shit.

[Nua Corda]

Cars kill more people than guns. By a HUGE factor. If you really wanted to protect life by banning shit you know nothing about, it would be more effective to ban them than guns.

Not so huge, pal. Gun deaths are on their way to surpass car deaths. I'm not in favor of banning cars, nor am for banning all guns. It's more effective to regulate things that causes extreme death toll like tobacco, drugs, and alcohol. But it's far more important to regulate the fucking shit out of weapons too, especially firearms. Prohibition doesn't do shit.

Can you give me some statistics to back that rather bold statement up, kid?

Depends on how that regulation works; Licensing and Registration? Good. Banning cosmetic features because they scare you? Bad.

[Dyakovo]

Why stop at weapons, lets expand this to vehicles, booze, and televisions.

Vehicles, booze, and televisions are not weapons, guns are. Big difference there.

Both guns and cars are tools that can be used to kill...

[Czechanada]

Vehicles, booze, and televisions are not weapons, guns are. Big difference there.

Both guns and cars are tools that can be used to kill...

But guns are specifically designed to inflict a high amount of kinetic energy on a target. Liquor and automobiles are not desinged for that purpose.

[Yes Im Biop]

Both guns and cars are tools that can be used to kill...

But guns are specifically designed to inflict a high amount of kinetic energy on a target. Liquor and automobiles are not desinged for that purpose.

But they work damn well at doing it.

[Tule]

Not so huge, pal. Gun deaths are on their way to surpass car deaths. I'm not in favor of banning cars, nor am for banning all guns. It's more effective to regulate things that causes extreme death toll like tobacco, drugs, and alcohol. But it's far more important to regulate the fucking shit out of weapons too, especially firearms. Prohibition doesn't do shit.

Can you give me some statistics to back that rather bold statement up, kid?

Depends on how that regulation works; Licensing and Registration? Good. Banning cosmetic features because they scare you? Bad.

IMO, requiring sellers to keep transaction records is a good compromise between those who want all guns registered and those who fear the big ebul government.

[Nua Corda]

Can you give me some statistics to back that rather bold statement up, kid?

Depends on how that regulation works; Licensing and Registration? Good. Banning cosmetic features because they scare you? Bad.

IMO, requiring sellers to keep transaction records is a good compromise between those who want all guns registered and those who fear the big ebul government.

I don't think that would be nearly as effective. We already do the exact same thing (government registration, that is) with cars, and nobody bitches about that. It's not that hard to apply the same system to firearms, just with striation profiles instead of license plates.

[Dyakovo]

Both guns and cars are tools that can be used to kill...

But guns are specifically designed to inflict a high amount of kinetic energy on a target. Liquor and automobiles are not desinged for that purpose.

A detail which does not reduce the effectiveness of automobiles at the task.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Can you give me some statistics to back that rather bold statement up, kid?

You first, kid.

Depends on how that regulation works; Licensing and Registration? Good. Banning cosmetic features because they scare you? Bad.

Again, I'm not in favor of prohibition.

[Nua Corda]

But guns are specifically designed to inflict a high amount of kinetic energy on a target. Liquor and automobiles are not desinged for that purpose.

A detail which does not reduce the effectiveness of automobiles at the task.

Though, allow me to make a point here;

Would you try to stop car violence by banning spoilers and custom bodywork?

[Sophian]

Cars kill more people than guns. By a HUGE factor. If you really wanted to protect life by banning shit you know nothing about, it would be more effective to ban them than guns.

Not so huge, pal. Gun deaths are on their way to surpass car deaths. I'm not in favor of banning cars, nor am for banning all guns. It's more effective to regulate things that causes extreme death toll like tobacco, drugs, and alcohol. But it's far more important to regulate the fucking shit out of weapons too, especially firearms. Prohibition doesn't do shit.

11,504 people died from firearm homicides in the U.S. in 2009 according to the CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf )
31,347 total firearm deaths in the U.S. when including suicide
34,485 died from motor-vehicle related injuries

There are already laws against homicide & suicide, so I don't see how new laws are going to deter crime. In fact I think crime will go up, England & Wales has stricter gun control than the U.S, yet has more assaults & burglaries.

730 assaults (per 100,000 inhabitants) in England & Wales
262 assaults (per 100,000 inhabitants) in the U.S.

986 burglaries (per 100,000 inhabitants) in England & Wales
715 burglaries (per 100,000 inhabitants) in the U.S.
( http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_s ... an2012.pdf )

Mexico has stricter gun laws than the U.S., the only gun store in Mexico is in Mexico City ( http://www.as-coa.org/articles/explaine ... ies#mexico ). Yet, Mexico has a higher homicide rate than the U.S.
18.1 homicides (per 100,000 inhabitants) in Mexico
5 homicides (per 100,000 inhabitants) in the U.S.
1.1 homicides (per 100,000 inhabitants) in England & Wales
( http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_s ... an2012.pdf )
When you consider this, there really isn't a strong indication that stricter gun laws in the U.S. will prevent homicides.

The already present assault weapons ban in Connecticut, along with the homicide laws in Connecticut didn't deter the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Connecticut is in the top 5 for states with the strictest gun laws according the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. ( http://statutes.laws.com/connecticut/ti ... Sec53-202c ) ( http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/ )

Literally more than 2x as many people die from unintentional falls than firearm homicides "In 2009, 25,562 persons died as the result of falls, 14.4% of all injury deaths" - ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf ). So, why isn't the government over-dramatizing every accidental fall while trying to regulate gravity?

Even when you compare the gun laws of every state with violent crime, there is no strong indication that stricter gun regulation deters violent crime.

( http://www.the-minuteman.org/2011/09/25 ... core-card/ )
The 5 states with the lowest violent crime in the country are rated "weakest" by the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence

A lot of this data shouldn't be new to you. Its been posted in response to you several times.

[Dyakovo]

A detail which does not reduce the effectiveness of automobiles at the task.

Though, allow me to make a point here;

Would you try to stop car violence by banning spoilers and custom bodywork?

Not sure why you're asking me that?

[United Prefectures of Appia]

*snip*

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-1 ... -2015.html

[Ragnarsdomr]

But it's far more important to regulate the fucking shit out of weapons too, especially firearms.

If you're going to regulate weaponry as a whole, could you get the US Gubmint to ban wallhangers? I can fub up some source that say that they're more likely to kill children and spit in the face of democracy, maybe photoshop up a scary image of a SCAdian menacing an infant if you need. Just, y'know, please don't go about banning any wasters or proper blades while you're at it, those don't cause nearly any harm at all, and they're great for impressing the ladies at medieval faires.

[Nua Corda]

nvm

[Nua Corda]

Though, allow me to make a point here;

Would you try to stop car violence by banning spoilers and custom bodywork?

Not sure why you're asking me that?

I'm not asking you, specifically, it's a hypothetical directed at the thread as a whole.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

Ah so does that mean that you agree that the 2nd Amendment applies more to the support of militia than individual rights? Besides, and what's wrong with government-approved gun licenses? It would at least insure some sort of federal universal gun control to be consistent throughout the country rather than relying on state-by-state laws. If I ever had to own a gun for protection, it's more than likely I would either enlist in the military, militia, or join the police force.

What if the next tyrannical regime IS the US government?

Tyrannical regime can either come from within our government or from the outside our country. Either way, when was the last time the American government got deposed?

Try to remember that when you are telling people what steps Australia took to disarm their public. I don't want my tax dollars going to buying back people's guns.

Even if it meant that your taxes could be spent in an effort to save millions of lives from further gun bloodshed?

---

[.

I believe owning a firearm IS an individual right set up by the 2nd amendment. Gun owners also have the right to form a militia. That's is also a right set up by the 2nd amendment. The only gun license that should be required is a service arm bought by a retired soldier (which should not be against the law).

It's not about when was the last time our government got deposed. It's about the public being a part of the checks & balance system set up by the "founding fathers" beyond the vote while at the same time adding to our public defense.

I don't see how disarming the public can save millions of lives unless you have a plan to disarm the armed forces of the world. We pay way too much tax to support armed forces which is much too large. The militia is suppose to be a part of our culture. that's why it's written into our Bill of Rights. But, without it & a far larger military than any other country in the world, there isn't much stopping the US government from doing whatever it wants is there? How many of the last military conflicts were voted on & approved by congress within the 1st 30 days of sending troops? How many times did our Representative pull out millions from our social security fund, only to never pay it back & raise the age that working people can retire? Why isn't the major players of the banking industry behind bars & answering to the crimes of immoral reckless endangerment of our whole economic system? Why isn't the public in an outrage that real wages haven't risen in 30 years?

With the exception of which special interest groups get their mouth on the nipple of the government take, it doesn't really matter which of the 2 parties are in power, because they are both financially backed by the same few handfuls of people that are laughing all the way to the bank. Why is it like this? Because we do not stand up for our rights when they are written away or further limited by congress in order to protect us from ourselves. Only the militia that is our constitutional right, IS the check that protects us from them, when the vote has lost power to represent the will of the people.

[Vareiln]

I wonder... Has anyone in this thread proposed major restrictions on handguns?

[Nua Corda]

I wonder... Has anyone in this thread proposed major restrictions on handguns?

I personally am on the fence on that. I would support a barrel length limit, and I support heavy licensing and regulation on all guns, but I'm not sure how far I'd go. Of course, that may just be because I want to collect M1911s.

[Salandriagado]

And what, exactly, do you think being overrun by an armed militia entails? Tea and biscuits?

By force, but force doesnt have to include lethal actions.

The argument still holds. Put the red herring down.

[Salandriagado]

And? "Some" ex-navy seals with small arms still doesn't beat an entire military base with heavy artillery and strike-bombers.

SO let me get this. You think that the Military, The people who are sworn o Protect the Citizen's of america from any Threat, Would become that threat? As well as attacking their Backing? Cause if so, Please do leave

That is exactly the opposite to what I said. Try reading the fucking discussion before jumping into the middle of it and embarrassing yourself.

[Vareiln]

I wonder... Has anyone in this thread proposed major restrictions on handguns?

I personally am on the fence on that. I would support a barrel length limit, and I support heavy licensing and regulation on all guns, but I'm not sure how far I'd go. Of course, that may just be because I want to collect M1911s.

To me, it seems, that regulating pistols much more than they currently are now(Along with closing loopholes), would be the only restrictions that could ever work at reducing gun crime.
Just think, if it was a hell of a lot more difficult for someone to get a saturday night special.

[Nua Corda]

I personally am on the fence on that. I would support a barrel length limit, and I support heavy licensing and regulation on all guns, but I'm not sure how far I'd go. Of course, that may just be because I want to collect M1911s.

To me, it seems, that regulating pistols much more than they currently are now(Along with closing loopholes), would be the only restrictions that could ever work at reducing gun crime.
Just think, if it was a hell of a lot more difficult for someone to get a saturday night special.

Mandatory waiting periods, registration and requiring a gun license (which would require background, sanity, and just general checking up) for every purchase of any and all guns or gun barrels would seem to be the ticket for me.

[Tule]

I wonder... Has anyone in this thread proposed major restrictions on handguns?

I personally am on the fence on that. I would support a barrel length limit, and I support heavy licensing and regulation on all guns, but I'm not sure how far I'd go. Of course, that may just be because I want to collect M1911s.

I'd like to see a 1000$ tax stamp on handguns shorter than 7.5 inches.

Obtaining a CHL licence would then excempt you from that tax.