US Gun Control (Yes, again).

[Big Jim P]

The simplest way would be a negative endorsement on a persons state-issued ID or Drivers License. A bright red background say. Red ID means no sale.

Ok, that's an idea I can get behind. However, how does that help in situations such as, and I provided multiple links to this above, private sales, where background checks and such are not required? And what if someone does not have state issued ID?

And please let me know how this is different from general licensing, which is something I proposed above?

Well, for one thing, You cannot legally buy a gun without an ID. No ID=no sale. Private transactions should remain precisely that: private. Should it turn out that the sale is illegal, then prosecute both parties.

As for licensing, I do not believe that one should be required merely to own a firearm. One should be required for carrying one in public however. Like I posted earlier, you do not have to have a license merely to own a car, you only need one to operate one in public.

[Zachganistan]

This picture is completely idiotic.

[Aznazia]

Ok I can see your point. But it doesn't matter if you pass more gun laws. Criminals will get their guns.

Let me give you this stat.

So why don't we outlaw cars and alcohol in urban areas?

Again, meaningless without context. What is the per capita ownership of guns to gun deaths as opposed to cars to auto accidents?

Boy I have to spell this out don't I. Higher crimes and deaths will occur in urban areas no matter what. It is inevitable. The chance of you getting shot by an assault rifle is less than you being attacked by a shark. You have more of a chance of dying in a car accident than being killed by some lunatic has an illegally owned fire arm. So I don;t see what difference it would make if you increase gun laws. Because criminals don't follow laws.

[Zachganistan]

Ok, that's an idea I can get behind. However, how does that help in situations such as, and I provided multiple links to this above, private sales, where background checks and such are not required? And what if someone does not have state issued ID?

And please let me know how this is different from general licensing, which is something I proposed above?

Well, for one thing, You cannot legally buy a gun without an ID. No ID=no sale. Private transactions should remain precisely that: private. Should it turn out that the sale is illegal, then prosecute both parties.

As for licensing, I do not believe that one should be required merely to own a firearm. One should be required for carrying one in public however. Like I posted earlier, you do not have to have a license merely to own a car, you only need one to operate one in public.

I don't think people by firearms to hang them on a shelf. Collectors not included.

[Enadail]

Then I apologize. In the past, when I've made proposals about expanding background checks, Jim has opposed my propositions, so I assumed his position I suppose.

Actually, I am of two minds about background checks. On one had, they pre-suppose that anyone attempting to purchase a gun is a criminal. On the other hand, some who attempt to purchase a gun are criminals. I would like to see the negative endorsement used to prevent sales to unqualified persons, and an option to take training to be issued a license to carry, open or concealed.

It should not be the duty of the law abiding to prove that they should be allowed to own a gun, but on the State to prove that they shouldn't.

While in general, I agree that the onus should be on the government, I think certain restrictions are necessary in my opinion.

But I also disagree that a background check presumes guilt. Its kind of like saying being carded assumes I'm under 21, or that being stopped at a drunk check assumes I'm drunk. Its something the general public has to do to help keep themselves safe. Just like we lock our doors or call the police, until it becomes something that obstructs our day to day, I don't think such activities presume guilt.

[Big Jim P]

Well, for one thing, You cannot legally buy a gun without an ID. No ID=no sale. Private transactions should remain precisely that: private. Should it turn out that the sale is illegal, then prosecute both parties.

As for licensing, I do not believe that one should be required merely to own a firearm. One should be required for carrying one in public however. Like I posted earlier, you do not have to have a license merely to own a car, you only need one to operate one in public.

I don't think people by firearms to hang them on a shelf. Collectors not included.

No. We buy them to shoot.

[Big Jim P]

Actually, I am of two minds about background checks. On one had, they pre-suppose that anyone attempting to purchase a gun is a criminal. On the other hand, some who attempt to purchase a gun are criminals. I would like to see the negative endorsement used to prevent sales to unqualified persons, and an option to take training to be issued a license to carry, open or concealed.

It should not be the duty of the law abiding to prove that they should be allowed to own a gun, but on the State to prove that they shouldn't.

While in general, I agree that the onus should be on the government, I think certain restrictions are necessary in my opinion.

But I also disagree that a background check presumes guilt. Its kind of like saying being carded assumes I'm under 21, or that being stopped at a drunk check assumes I'm drunk. Its something the general public has to do to help keep themselves safe. Just like we lock our doors or call the police, until it becomes something that obstructs our day to day, I don't think such activities presume guilt.

I see your point.

Of course, I do not lock my doors, nor does my town have a police force. Such are the joys of living in a small community.

[Grave_n_idle]

Which matters only if you've shown that all auto-deaths are caused by driver error. Which you haven't.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and state that all 10,839 drunk driving deaths are caused by driver error.

Possibly, but on my screen, that shows up as a different statistic.

At some point you seem to have shifted to a different argument.

[Zachganistan]

I don't think people by firearms to hang them on a shelf. Collectors not included.

No. We buy them to shoot.

Hence why we need registration.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Actually, I am of two minds about background checks. On one had, they pre-suppose that anyone attempting to purchase a gun is a criminal. On the other hand, some who attempt to purchase a gun are criminals. I would like to see the negative endorsement used to prevent sales to unqualified persons, and an option to take training to be issued a license to carry, open or concealed.

It should not be the duty of the law abiding to prove that they should be allowed to own a gun, but on the State to prove that they shouldn't.

While in general, I agree that the onus should be on the government, I think certain restrictions are necessary in my opinion.

But I also disagree that a background check presumes guilt. Its kind of like saying being carded assumes I'm under 21, or that being stopped at a drunk check assumes I'm drunk. Its something the general public has to do to help keep themselves safe. Just like we lock our doors or call the police, until it becomes something that obstructs our day to day, I don't think such activities presume guilt.

Getting carded does assume you're under 21.
It's why in the UK, we have Challenge 21 and sometimes Challenge 25, when our drinking age is only 18.

[Big Jim P]

No. We buy them to shoot.

Hence why we need registration.

No we do not. Shooting does not imply that we are doing so in public.

Edit: with that I am off. I will no doubt be back for further debate on this subject.

[Seperates]

Again, meaningless without context. What is the per capita ownership of guns to gun deaths as opposed to cars to auto accidents?

Boy I have to spell this out don't I. Higher crimes and deaths will occur in urban areas no matter what. It is inevitable. The chance of you getting shot by an assault rifle is less than you being attacked by a shark. You have more of a chance of dying in a car accident than being killed by some lunatic has an illegally owned fire arm. So I don;t see what difference it would make if you increase gun laws. Because criminals don't follow laws.

And I'm not advocating an increase in gun laws. For fucks sake, read.

All I'm pointing out is that if more people own cars than own guns, the fact that there are more car deaths is not surprising. That and the fact that cars are used on a much regular basis by individuals far more than guns. All I'm pointing out is that you've shown me numbers telling me they mean something, when really they are just fucking numbers without context.

EDIT: And I am done for now, I may or may not come back to this.

[Zachganistan]

Hence why we need registration.

No we do not. Shooting does not imply that we are doing so in public.

But you are transporting that weapon in public for most people. Not everyone lives in Smallville, LA.

[Enadail]

Ok, that's an idea I can get behind. However, how does that help in situations such as, and I provided multiple links to this above, private sales, where background checks and such are not required? And what if someone does not have state issued ID?

And please let me know how this is different from general licensing, which is something I proposed above?

Well, for one thing, You cannot legally buy a gun without an ID. No ID=no sale. Private transactions should remain precisely that: private. Should it turn out that the sale is illegal, then prosecute both parties.

As for licensing, I do not believe that one should be required merely to own a firearm. One should be required for carrying one in public however. Like I posted earlier, you do not have to have a license merely to own a car, you only need one to operate one in public.

But if its private, and found to be illegal, how can it be traced or proven? If its completely private, how can anything useful happen?

And while in general I can see your second point, the only issue is that a) a gun used on private property may not stay on private property, and b) given the objective is to reduce crime, wouldn't licensing help that would not providing a great burden on law abiding citizens?

[Enadail]

While in general, I agree that the onus should be on the government, I think certain restrictions are necessary in my opinion.

But I also disagree that a background check presumes guilt. Its kind of like saying being carded assumes I'm under 21, or that being stopped at a drunk check assumes I'm drunk. Its something the general public has to do to help keep themselves safe. Just like we lock our doors or call the police, until it becomes something that obstructs our day to day, I don't think such activities presume guilt.

I see your point.

Of course, I do not lock my doors, nor does my town have a police force. Such are the joys of living in a small community.

And I think this is one of the issues in the gun control debate, and correct me if I'm wrong. Those in smaller communities, specially in more rural areas, have less to fear from gun violence then those in more urban, populated areas. And as shown above, those tend to be where gun crime happens more, and statistically, where people tend to be more liberal. Thus why you see the divide IMO.

[Keron]

Ideally, I rather like gun control. I'm not a fan of vigilantism, to be frankly honest, and the idea of locals using firearms to help arrest criminals is more scary than anything else. The probability of innocent bystanders getting shot is just too high.

But then, that's never the main argument of firearm advocates. The main reason for guns is precisely defense. And, well, as a tool to prevent oppression from the government, but a few guns aren't much use in the face of tanks and the like, so that's not true any more.

And whilst I completely understand the need for people to feel safe, it is also true that there are numerous accidents related to guns from just your average citizen who keeps a gun at home / in his car "just in case". Furthermore, the likelihood of criminals owning firearms would also be greatly reduced.

The above is where I go back to the very first word of this post. "Ideally". Gun control is unlikely to work in the US. Why? Because it would be extremely easy to smuggle guns in from Mexico, and then sell them in an alley to any person. So, gun control a la Europe is not a very good idea in the US. But in, for example, the UK, it isn't that hard to enforce. The UK is an island nation, and so it is much easier to control smuggling. Thus, it is a more practical solution in the UK.

[Yes Im Biop]

Okay, I'll talk about my somewhat unpopular opinion.

1. I do not support weapons bans for civilians, except on weapons that can cause severe amounts of damage in short periods of times. I am not familiar with many guns, so I'll refrain from giving examples or specifying a limit because I have not determined a limit as of this point. But I suppose I will determine a limit at some point. But what I am talking about is generally along the line of things that can launch projectiles capable of causing large damage to small buildings+, or explosives capable of doing the same.
2. I do support mandatory background checks and psychiatric testing before being able to purchase a weapon.
3. I support that, outside of hunting and especially in highly populated areas, the only place you can fire (except in self defense) being firing ranges.
4. I support mandatory gun safety lessons for anyone who owns a gun every x years.
5. I support lowering the amount of ammo one can buy at a given time, unless you purchase it at a stocked firing range and only use that ammo at the firing range.
6. I support continuing trying to perfect different smart gun technologies.
7. I support the right for people to own guns and feel secure in their homes.

We are sending you to D.C. Right now.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Again, meaningless without context. What is the per capita ownership of guns to gun deaths as opposed to cars to auto accidents?

Boy I have to spell this out don't I. Higher crimes and deaths will occur in urban areas no matter what. It is inevitable. The chance of you getting shot by an assault rifle is less than you being attacked by a shark. You have more of a chance of dying in a car accident than being killed by some lunatic has an illegally owned fire arm. So I don;t see what difference it would make if you increase gun laws. Because criminals don't follow laws.

No, the chance of getting shot by an assault rifle is greater than attacked by a shark (but then, most dangerous things are more likely than shark attacks).

[Uieurnthlaal]

Okay, I'll talk about my somewhat unpopular opinion.

1. I do not support weapons bans for civilians, except on weapons that can cause severe amounts of damage in short periods of times. I am not familiar with many guns, so I'll refrain from giving examples or specifying a limit because I have not determined a limit as of this point. But I suppose I will determine a limit at some point. But what I am talking about is generally along the line of things that can launch projectiles capable of causing large damage to small buildings+, or explosives capable of doing the same.
2. I do support mandatory background checks and psychiatric testing before being able to purchase a weapon.
3. I support that, outside of hunting and especially in highly populated areas, the only place you can fire (except in self defense) being firing ranges.
4. I support mandatory gun safety lessons for anyone who owns a gun every x years.
5. I support lowering the amount of ammo one can buy at a given time, unless you purchase it at a stocked firing range and only use that ammo at the firing range.
6. I support continuing trying to perfect different smart gun technologies.
7. I support the right for people to own guns and feel secure in their homes.

We are sending you to D.C. Right now.

Only to get voted out by an NRA funded counter-movement.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Boy I have to spell this out don't I. Higher crimes and deaths will occur in urban areas no matter what. It is inevitable. The chance of you getting shot by an assault rifle is less than you being attacked by a shark. You have more of a chance of dying in a car accident than being killed by some lunatic has an illegally owned fire arm. So I don;t see what difference it would make if you increase gun laws. Because criminals don't follow laws.

And I'm not advocating an increase in gun laws. For fucks sake, read.

All I'm pointing out is that if more people own cars than own guns, the fact that there are more car deaths is not surprising. That and the fact that cars are used on a much regular basis by individuals far more than guns. All I'm pointing out is that you've shown me numbers telling me they mean something, when really they are just fucking numbers without context.

EDIT: And I am done for now, I may or may not come back to this.

In ~2009, 193.5mn people drove 254mn cars.
It's impossible to find out how many people own firearms, since that's not public record and is not stored as data.

The ATF has however estimated that 34% of adults have personally owned a firearm (~105mn people) of which there are ~314mn in circulation.
47% of adults have lived in a household with firearms.

[Gauthier]

...

You do realize that all you did was point out that, hey, maybe the reasons why the democrats want higher gun control is because the areas where they live there is higher amounts of gun violence? Who da thunk it?

Or maybe, since it was centralized at major population centers, the reason why there are higher instances of gun crimes is maybe, oh I don't know, because there are more people there?

Jesus, stop using statistics if you don't even know what it means.

Ok I can see your point. But it doesn't matter if you pass more gun laws. Criminals will get their guns.

Let me give you this stat.

So why don't we outlaw cars and alcohol in urban areas?

Clearly because handguns and tools kill more people than semi-automatic rifles we should have absolutely *no* regulations on semi-automatic rifles whatsoever.

[Sociobiology]

I see your point.

Of course, I do not lock my doors, nor does my town have a police force. Such are the joys of living in a small community.

And I think this is one of the issues in the gun control debate, and correct me if I'm wrong. Those in smaller communities, specially in more rural areas, have less to fear from gun violence then those in more urban, populated areas. And as shown above, those tend to be where gun crime happens more, and statistically, where people tend to be more liberal. Thus why you see the divide IMO.

actually small rural communities have higher per capita gun crime rates so you are more likely to be a victim of a gun crime in these places, in straight numbers of course urban areas have more gun crime they have many more people, but the rates are lower.
Think of it like pets the rate for dog ownership is higher in rural Kansas even thought there are far more dogs in New York city.

[Vazdania]

And I think this is one of the issues in the gun control debate, and correct me if I'm wrong. Those in smaller communities, specially in more rural areas, have less to fear from gun violence then those in more urban, populated areas. And as shown above, those tend to be where gun crime happens more, and statistically, where people tend to be more liberal. Thus why you see the divide IMO.

actually small rural communities have higher per capita gun crime rates so you are more likely to be a victim of a gun crime in these places, in straight numbers of course urban areas have more gun crime they have many more people, but the rates are lower.
Think of it like pets the rate for dog ownership is higher in rural Kansas even thought there are far more dogs in New York city.

As per what source?

[Sociobiology]

...

You do realize that all you did was point out that, hey, maybe the reasons why the democrats want higher gun control is because the areas where they live there is higher amounts of gun violence? Who da thunk it?

Or maybe, since it was centralized at major population centers, the reason why there are higher instances of gun crimes is maybe, oh I don't know, because there are more people there?

Jesus, stop using statistics if you don't even know what it means.

Ok I can see your point. But it doesn't matter if you pass more gun laws. Criminals will get their guns.

Let me give you this stat.

So why don't we outlaw cars and alcohol in urban areas?

you realized you just argued for gun control, right.
because both of those things have strict age restrictions and both involve a tool you need a permit to operate.

[The Serbian Empire]

Boy I have to spell this out don't I. Higher crimes and deaths will occur in urban areas no matter what. It is inevitable. The chance of you getting shot by an assault rifle is less than you being attacked by a shark. You have more of a chance of dying in a car accident than being killed by some lunatic has an illegally owned fire arm. So I don;t see what difference it would make if you increase gun laws. Because criminals don't follow laws.

No, the chance of getting shot by an assault rifle is greater than attacked by a shark (but then, most dangerous things are more likely than shark attacks).

There are a lot more dangerous things like using bath salts or drinking too much alcohol.