Gun Control - A Political Thread

[Big Jim P]

I would like to live in a world in which there are no guns on the streets. Now, you might think that is a crime because of some selfish, uninformed and petty hang-up, but I for one refuse to be called accessory to a criminal act.

And I would like to live in a world, where criminals didn't exist, society took care of it's own, and proper healthcare was truly affordable for all. However, I'm not going to hold my breath in the meantime...

Also, calling BJP "uninformed" is absolutely laughable at best. Just thought I'd point that error out to you, and fix your uninformed comment.

You know, I wouldn't mind the need for self defense to cease to exist. Of course, that would leave the other reasons for gun ownership intact.

Edit: as fro my being uninformed, I know quite a bit about guns. Their use, technology, performance, how to use them safely, responsibly and accurately, which if more than most gun-control freaks can say (at least honestly, but lets face it, very few of them are honest).

[Paddy O Fernature]

And I would like to live in a world, where criminals didn't exist, society took care of it's own, and proper healthcare was truly affordable for all. However, I'm not going to hold my breath in the meantime...

Also, calling BJP "uninformed" is absolutely laughable at best. Just thought I'd point that error out to you, and fix your uninformed comment.

You know, I wouldn't mind the need for self defense to cease to exist. Of course, that would leave the other reasons for gun ownership intact.

Quite so, actually.

*EDIT*

It's not like you have a million links on your sig about the issue or something BJP....

[Big Jim P]

I would like to continue this discussion, but I have to sleep. I will be back tomorrow.

[Big Jim P]

You know, I wouldn't mind the need for self defense to cease to exist. Of course, that would leave the other reasons for gun ownership intact.

Quite so, actually.

*EDIT*

It's not like you have a million links on your sig about the issue or something BJP....

I still consider it a point of honor, that although trained in their use, I have never drawn a gun (let alone fired one) in anger.

[Viinborg]

I would like to live in a world in which there are no guns on the streets. Now, you might think that is a crime because of some selfish, uninformed and petty hang-up, but I for one refuse to be called accessory to a criminal act.

Answer this question for a change: How many children a year are killed by their father’s stash of arsenic or stick of gelignite?

How many times are guns used to defend the innocent? Guns on the street are not a problem in law-abiding hands.

Nice strawman by the way.

You just said a number of people are not to be trusted! In which case I wonder, "what are you on about?" when you are talking about a desire for more guns on the street.

Now, you may very well be a stand-up guy and a law-abiding citizen, why not? Fair enough; but I fear that your wish for everyone to own a gun is not realisable without a great amount of human suffering. The mantra more guns equals more safety is flawed. This is a factual claim. You may disagree, but if you do, at that moment you are no longer talking about facts, and that is what I am going to stick to.

Let's answer this question: Which society has become safer through less gun restrictions?
Have you been to an Australian slum town lately? Or a European ghetto? How does this compare to Philadelphia?

PS Again, what do you mean "straw man"? There is an apt analogy to be made here. Arms product A, legal, responsible for death rate AR; Arms product B, illegal responsible for death rate BR. Which death rate is going to be lower? That is to say, which is going to benefit society and realise a greater amount of human well-being?

EDIT:

as fro my being uninformed, I know quite a bit about guns. Their use, technology, performance, how to use them safely, responsibly and accurately, which if more than most gun-control freaks can say (at least honestly, but lets face it, very few of them are honest).

I am sure you know more about guns than me, I am not doubting that. Let me also say that I value your input, and of course I respect your views. I used the word "uninformed" in reference to a number of statements which I fear may not be true. Of course, I may well be wrong. I look forward to continuing this discussion some other time!

[Great Argonia]

The problem with gun control is that the government always takes it too far and is horrible at implementing it. A standard background check is all that is needed, beyond that is the government abusing it's power. Gun confiscation, gun registration, all this is abusive, and the government is doing them. Plus criminals don't follow laws, that's what makes them criminals, so gun control laws just fall on the law abiding citizens.

[Spirit of Hope]

How many times are guns used to defend the innocent? Guns on the street are not a problem in law-abiding hands.

Nice strawman by the way.

You just said a number of people are not to be trusted! In which case I wonder, "what are you on about?" when you are talking about a desire for more guns on the street.

Now, you may very well be a stand-up guy and a law-abiding citizen, why not? Fair enough; but I fear that your wish for everyone to own a gun is not realisable without a great amount of human suffering. The mantra more guns equals more safety is flawed. This is a factual claim. You may disagree, but if you do, at that moment you are no longer talking about facts, and that is what I am going to stick to.

Let's answer this question: Which society has become safer through less gun restrictions?
Have you been to an Australian slum town lately? Or a European ghetto? How does this compare to Philadelphia?

PS Again, what do you mean "straw man"? There is an apt analogy to be made here. Arms product A, legal, responsible for death rate AR; Arms product B, illegal responsible for death rate BR. Which death rate is going to be lower? That is to say, which is going to benefit society and realise a greater amount of human well-being?

What I don't get is you keep referring back to us (gun supporters) wanting to give everyone a gun. I haven't said anything like that, nor to my knowledge has Big Jim P or any other gun supporter here. We simply want to keep our right to own guns. We aren't even against background checks.

Most murders are carried out with small cheap handguns. Which is both one of the most widely sold styles (for both self defense and sport shooting). So you cn make those illegal and hurt a large number of normal non violent gun owners.

[Paddy O Fernature]

You just said a number of people are not to be trusted! In which case I wonder, "what are you on about?" when you are talking about a desire for more guns on the street.

Now, you may very well be a stand-up guy and a law-abiding citizen, why not? Fair enough; but I fear that your wish for everyone to own a gun is not realisable without a great amount of human suffering. The mantra more guns equals more safety is flawed. This is a factual claim. You may disagree, but if you do, at that moment you are no longer talking about facts, and that is what I am going to stick to.

Let's answer this question: Which society has become safer through less gun restrictions?
Have you been to an Australian slum town lately? Or a European ghetto? How does this compare to Philadelphia?

PS Again, what do you mean "straw man"? There is an apt analogy to be made here. Arms product A, legal, responsible for death rate AR; Arms product B, illegal responsible for death rate BR. Which death rate is going to be lower? That is to say, which is going to benefit society and realise a greater amount of human well-being?

What I don't get is you keep referring back to us (gun supporters) wanting to give everyone a gun. I haven't said anything like that, nor to my knowledge has Big Jim P or any other gun supporter here. We simply want to keep our right to own guns. We aren't even against background checks.

^ This.

[Viinborg]

You just said a number of people are not to be trusted! In which case I wonder, "what are you on about?" when you are talking about a desire for more guns on the street.

Now, you may very well be a stand-up guy and a law-abiding citizen, why not? Fair enough; but I fear that your wish for everyone to own a gun is not realisable without a great amount of human suffering. The mantra more guns equals more safety is flawed. This is a factual claim. You may disagree, but if you do, at that moment you are no longer talking about facts, and that is what I am going to stick to.

Let's answer this question: Which society has become safer through less gun restrictions?
Have you been to an Australian slum town lately? Or a European ghetto? How does this compare to Philadelphia?

PS Again, what do you mean "straw man"? There is an apt analogy to be made here. Arms product A, legal, responsible for death rate AR; Arms product B, illegal responsible for death rate BR. Which death rate is going to be lower? That is to say, which is going to benefit society and realise a greater amount of human well-being?

What I don't get is you keep referring back to us (gun supporters) wanting to give everyone a gun. I haven't said anything like that, nor to my knowledge has Big Jim P or any other gun supporter here. We simply want to keep our right to own guns. We aren't even against background checks.

Most murders are carried out with small cheap handguns. Which is both one of the most widely sold styles (for both self defense and sport shooting). So you cn make those illegal and hurt a large number of normal non violent gun owners.

It pleases me to read that clarification actually. We don't agree on everything, but I think we are a lot closer to each other than I thought.

[Llamalandia]

Guns save lives. In the sense that if we all have guns, we would all be safe. Such is the conservative logic: if we all have guns, there is less gun violence; along the same lines that if we all have a disease, there is less illness; if we are all right-wing, there are less fascists; if we all own a car, there are less traffic jams.

If you want to save lives, you remove the things that cause deaths, you do not hand everyone a piece of the lethal problem. That is to say, if you are concerned about saving lives, and you find that alpha causes deaths, you do not hand everyone an alpha.

"Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Obviously. If you believe guns kill people out of their own volition you should see a specialist in mental health. People kill people. There’s the clue. It turns out to be quite obvious that people can’t be trusted with those instruments – so why are firearms still legal? How many children a year are killed by their father’s stash of arsenic or stick of gelignite?" - Unknown Source

If you feel like you want to own a gun because you tend to feel safer, freer, less insecure, or just good in general, just say so, but do not pretend it has any beneficial use in civilised society.

If you need a gun to feel safe, you might just not live in the safest society in the world.
If you need a gun to feel free, you might just not be the most independent person in the world.
If you need a gun to feel less insecure, you might just not have the strongest personality in the world.
If you need a gun to feel good, you might just not be the happiest person in the world.
If you need a gun to constantly re-establish your freedom, you either have very bad neighbours, or you might just not live in the most libertarian society in the world.

"People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns, too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld

Exactly, that's the whole problem if the govt could be trusted and kept itself under control and control the crime problems of society guns for defense of self and of liberty wouldn't be necessary. But no one lives in a place like that. Plus a libertarian society would respect people's gun rights anyway so this issue becomes moot in such a society.

[Tule]

If this law was passed on a federal levle in the US, I think it would actually make a difference.

AUGUSTA, Maine — In a surprise vote Wednesday, the Maine Senate passed a bill that creates civil penalties for those who sell guns in private sales to people who are prohibited from having them. The legislation imposes a civil fine of $500 if a gun seller does not perform a background check and the buyer is later discovered to be a prohibited person.

As it is, the NICS and the GCA68 is completely ineffective as a crime prevention measure because any felon can buy a gun from a private party no questions asked. This could actually change that.

Note that the law in question does not explicitly require individuals to perform background checks on private purchasers, but you are held liable if you sell a gun to a prohibited person.

[Gun Manufacturers]

If this law was passed on a federal levle in the US, I think it would actually make a difference.

AUGUSTA, Maine — In a surprise vote Wednesday, the Maine Senate passed a bill that creates civil penalties for those who sell guns in private sales to people who are prohibited from having them. The legislation imposes a civil fine of $500 if a gun seller does not perform a background check and the buyer is later discovered to be a prohibited person.

As it is, the NICS and the GCA68 is completely ineffective as a crime prevention measure because any felon can buy a gun from a private party no questions asked. This could actually change that.

If civilians were allowed free access to NICS (right now, only FFLs are allowed to access NICS), I wouldn't mind if background checks were required for private sales. To have to pay a transfer fee to an FFL (which can cost $50+), just to sell a firearm to a friend or relative is ludicrous.

[The New Sea Territory]

This isn't a political thread. It's a cesspool of cannibals.

As are all Gun Control threads.

[Tule]

If this law was passed on a federal levle in the US, I think it would actually make a difference.



As it is, the NICS and the GCA68 is completely ineffective as a crime prevention measure because any felon can buy a gun from a private party no questions asked. This could actually change that.

If civilians were allowed free access to NICS (right now, only FFLs are allowed to access NICS), I wouldn't mind if background checks were required for private sales. To have to pay a transfer fee to an FFL (which can cost $50+), just to sell a firearm to a friend or relative is ludicrous.

Then don't do a background check. The law doesn't mandate them, it just (rightfully) punishes you for selling a gun to a prohibited person when you could have checked his or her background.

A $50 transfer fee is ludicrous? That's cute. A gun license over here costs $400+, stop whining.

[Gun Manufacturers]

If civilians were allowed free access to NICS (right now, only FFLs are allowed to access NICS), I wouldn't mind if background checks were required for private sales. To have to pay a transfer fee to an FFL (which can cost $50+), just to sell a firearm to a friend or relative is ludicrous.

Then don't do a background check. The law doesn't mandate them, it just (rightfully) punishes you for selling a gun to a prohibited person when you could have checked his or her background.

A $50 transfer fee is ludicrous? That's cute. A gun license over here costs $400+, stop whining.

Please re-read what I posted, in regards to the background checks.

That's $50+ PER FIREARM transferred, which IS ludicrous. As to what a gun license costs where you live, I have a CT pistol permit, which cost me hundreds of dollars to obtain and several weeks of waiting. In order to buy ammunition, magazines, long guns, or pistols, I'm required to have one in CT (due to the CT General ASSembly's response to Sandy Hook).

[Geilinor]

Then don't do a background check. The law doesn't mandate them, it just (rightfully) punishes you for selling a gun to a prohibited person when you could have checked his or her background.

A $50 transfer fee is ludicrous? That's cute. A gun license over here costs $400+, stop whining.

Please re-read what I posted, in regards to the background checks.

That's $50+ PER FIREARM transferred, which IS ludicrous. As to what a gun license costs where you live, I have a CT pistol permit, which cost me hundreds of dollars to obtain and several weeks of waiting. In order to buy ammunition, magazines, long guns, or pistols, I'm required to have one in CT (due to the CT General ASSembly's response to Sandy Hook).

Ludicrous in your opinion.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Please re-read what I posted, in regards to the background checks.

That's $50+ PER FIREARM transferred, which IS ludicrous. As to what a gun license costs where you live, I have a CT pistol permit, which cost me hundreds of dollars to obtain and several weeks of waiting. In order to buy ammunition, magazines, long guns, or pistols, I'm required to have one in CT (due to the CT General ASSembly's response to Sandy Hook).

Ludicrous in your opinion.

What is the transfer fee for other items?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Please re-read what I posted, in regards to the background checks.

That's $50+ PER FIREARM transferred, which IS ludicrous. As to what a gun license costs where you live, I have a CT pistol permit, which cost me hundreds of dollars to obtain and several weeks of waiting. In order to buy ammunition, magazines, long guns, or pistols, I'm required to have one in CT (due to the CT General ASSembly's response to Sandy Hook).

Ludicrous in your opinion.

Ludicrous is a great term to describe being treated like a criminal, without ever having committed a crime in the first place.

[Geilinor]

Ludicrous in your opinion.

Ludicrous is a great term to describe being treated like a criminal, without ever having committed a crime in the first place.

The goal is to make it more difficult for those who may be criminals to get firearms. Your argument is like saying that "DUI patrols treat drivers like criminals".

[Gun Manufacturers]

Ludicrous is a great term to describe being treated like a criminal, without ever having committed a crime in the first place.

The goal is to make it more difficult for those who may be criminals to get firearms. Your argument is like saying that "DUI patrols treat drivers like criminals".

Then give private parties free access to NICS. Gun control advocates would get their background checks, and gun rights advocates can get gun control advocates off our backs (for a minute).

[Paddy O Fernature]

Ludicrous is a great term to describe being treated like a criminal, without ever having committed a crime in the first place.

The goal is to make it more difficult for those who may be criminals to get firearms. Your argument is like saying that "DUI patrols treat drivers like criminals".

Then again, enact legislation that actually goes after criminals, and not the fucking law abiding citizen who has done nothing wrong.

The goal is to make it more difficult for those who may be criminals to get firearms. Your argument is like saying that "DUI patrols treat drivers like criminals".

Then give private parties free access to NICS. Gun control advocates would get their background checks, and gun rights advocates can get gun control advocates off our backs (for a minute).

Good start. However, you are wrong about the GC "advocates" shutting up for a minute. It would realistically be about thirty seconds, if that, before they started demanding more "compromises".

[Llamalandia]

This isn't a political thread. It's a cesspool of cannibals.

As are all Gun Control threads.

Actually this one has stayed fairly well behaved and reasonable for the most part. Certainly better than most I've seen.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

The goal is to make it more difficult for those who may be criminals to get firearms. Your argument is like saying that "DUI patrols treat drivers like criminals".

Then give private parties free access to NICS. Gun control advocates would get their background checks, and gun rights advocates can get gun control advocates off our backs (for a minute).

It does take a special kind of paranoid victimization complex to believe that a political movement you've had on the run for twenty years is breathing down your neck for offering up solutions your side itself proposed way back when as a counter to real gun control policies. But why would people advocating for more guns with less regulation and protection be paranoid and desperately afraid of being made someone else's victim?

[Sociobiology]

The goal is to make it more difficult for those who may be criminals to get firearms. Your argument is like saying that "DUI patrols treat drivers like criminals".

Then again, enact legislation that actually goes after criminals, and not the fucking law abiding citizen who has done nothing wrong.

that's what background checks are.

[Chernoslavia]

How are we supposed to restrict that? Mind control?

Background checks and mental health regulations.

Which we already have as Gun Manufacturers explained.