Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Terrallamus]

Hey Guys! I'm new here on the forum and indeed NationStates in general, and I was just wondering what you guys' opinions are on gun laws. Personally, I think that most guns should be available to the public with mandatory background checks and a 1 week waiting period, with licensing for semi-autos and HEAVY RESTRICTIONS on full-autos. Please keep the conversation civil

[Arcturus Novus]

While I believe that every law-abiding American citizen has the right to own a firearm, I think the whole gun-buying process needs further regulation. Mandatory criminal and mental background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, limits/regulations on private sale and gun show purchases, and a set limit on how much ammunition one can buy at a given point.

[Washington Resistance Army]

While I believe that every law-abiding American citizen has the right to own a firearm, I think the whole gun-buying process needs further regulation. Mandatory criminal and mental background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, limits/regulations on private sale and gun show purchases, and a set limit on how much ammunition one can buy at a given point.

Why do we need more restrictions on automatics? They've only been used to commit crimes like, twice, since the 1930's.

[Rhoderberg]

While I believe that every law-abiding American citizen has the right to own a firearm, I think the whole gun-buying process needs further regulation. Mandatory criminal and mental background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, limits/regulations on private sale and gun show purchases, and a set limit on how much ammunition one can buy at a given point.

Automatic weapons are already heavily regulated, though.

[Farnhamia]

Hey Guys! I'm new here on the forum and indeed NationStates in general, and I was just wondering what you guys' opinions are on gun laws. Personally, I think that most guns should be available to the public with mandatory background checks and a 1 week waiting period, with licensing for semi-autos and HEAVY RESTRICTIONS on full-autos. Please keep the conversation civil

Merged into the now general Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control thread.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

Because it does indeed lower crime (crime overall has also been on the decrease in the US for a while), we value the right to go do that and gun restrictions like you have in Europe would be entirely impossible to implement in the US.

I've not seen much evidence that it actually reduces crime. I've not seen any evidence that it increases it, either. Crime has indeed been on a steady, consistent decline for decades, but it did this before the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, it did this during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and it has continued to do so after the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

While you may not see much justification for unlicensed guns, there doesn't seem to be much reason for randomly imposing a mandatory license on anything except perhaps handguns, considering FBI statistics indicate that shotguns and rifles account for fewer deaths (together) than bare hands.

And explosives account for less than .1% of total homicides. Does that mean it's pointless to regulate the exchange of explosives? I don't see anyone like the NRA standing up for the rights of demolitionists. Maybe it's because there is no such conglomeration of explosives manufacturers lobbyists.

[Arcturus Novus]

While I believe that every law-abiding American citizen has the right to own a firearm, I think the whole gun-buying process needs further regulation. Mandatory criminal and mental background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, limits/regulations on private sale and gun show purchases, and a set limit on how much ammunition one can buy at a given point.

Why do we need more restrictions on automatics? They've only been used to commit crimes like, twice, since the 1930's.

Fair point. Maybe they don't need further restriction.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why do we need more restrictions on automatics? They've only been used to commit crimes like, twice, since the 1930's.

Fair point. Maybe they don't need further restriction.

I also feel like we don't really need to add more regulations onto the current system, we just need to improve how well the current system is enforced. I feel like that alone would fix quite a few issues.

[Arcturus Novus]

Fair point. Maybe they don't need further restriction.

I also feel like we don't really need to add more regulations onto the current system, we just need to improve how well the current system is enforced. I feel like that alone would fix quite a few issues.

It's not often that I find myself agreeing with anything other than my own opinions. Good on you.

[Big Jim P]

Because it does indeed lower crime (crime overall has also been on the decrease in the US for a while), we value the right to go do that and gun restrictions like you have in Europe would be entirely impossible to implement in the US.

I've not seen much evidence that it actually reduces crime. I've not seen any evidence that it increases it, either. Crime has indeed been on a steady, consistent decline for decades, but it did this before the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, it did this during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and it has continued to do so after the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

While you may not see much justification for unlicensed guns, there doesn't seem to be much reason for randomly imposing a mandatory license on anything except perhaps handguns, considering FBI statistics indicate that shotguns and rifles account for fewer deaths (together) than bare hands.

Gun ownership may not decrease crime, but it certainly does not increase it either (despite what the GCFs constantly howl), and it is a pretty good means of defending ones self against crime.

Once again, the benefits of gun ownership far outweigh the cost.

[Sevvania]

I've not seen much evidence that it actually reduces crime. I've not seen any evidence that it increases it, either. Crime has indeed been on a steady, consistent decline for decades, but it did this before the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, it did this during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and it has continued to do so after the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

While you may not see much justification for unlicensed guns, there doesn't seem to be much reason for randomly imposing a mandatory license on anything except perhaps handguns, considering FBI statistics indicate that shotguns and rifles account for fewer deaths (together) than bare hands.

And explosives account for less than .1% of total homicides. Does that mean it's pointless to regulate the exchange of explosives? I don't see anyone like the NRA standing up for the rights of demolitionists. Maybe it's because there is no such conglomeration of explosives manufacturers lobbyists.

Have explosives (we'll say those that would qualify as a Destructive Device, just to avoid getting into a silly discussion about firecrackers) proliferated among civilians over the last century to the point that they outnumber cars? Have they been been available without a license since their introduction? They have not. However, guns have. That's why it's a poor analogy.

I never said it was pointless to regulate guns. Guns are regulated. I don't see any point in a license, though, except (as I stated previously) maybe for handguns.

[Kelinfort]

I've not seen much evidence that it actually reduces crime. I've not seen any evidence that it increases it, either. Crime has indeed been on a steady, consistent decline for decades, but it did this before the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, it did this during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and it has continued to do so after the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

While you may not see much justification for unlicensed guns, there doesn't seem to be much reason for randomly imposing a mandatory license on anything except perhaps handguns, considering FBI statistics indicate that shotguns and rifles account for fewer deaths (together) than bare hands.

Gun ownership may not decrease crime, but it certainly does not increase it either (despite what the GCFs constantly howl), and it is a pretty good means of defending ones self against crime.

Once again, the benefits of gun ownership far outweigh the cost.

I concur. Crime is being caused by the inability to create more opportunity for the working class. We must improve their lot in order to lower homicides. Switzerland is a brilliant example of this.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

And explosives account for less than .1% of total homicides. Does that mean it's pointless to regulate the exchange of explosives? I don't see anyone like the NRA standing up for the rights of demolitionists. Maybe it's because there is no such conglomeration of explosives manufacturers lobbyists.

Have explosives (we'll say those that would qualify as a Destructive Device, just to avoid getting into a silly discussion about firecrackers) proliferated among civilians over the last century to the point that they outnumber cars? Have they been been available without a license since their introduction? They have not. However, guns have. That's why it's a poor analogy.

I never said it was pointless to regulate guns. Guns are regulated. I don't see any point in a license, though, except (as I stated previously) maybe for handguns.

You have to have a license to drive a car. Personally, i think it's moronic that guns have a relative absence of regulation. They're items designed to kill things.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Have explosives (we'll say those that would qualify as a Destructive Device, just to avoid getting into a silly discussion about firecrackers) proliferated among civilians over the last century to the point that they outnumber cars? Have they been been available without a license since their introduction? They have not. However, guns have. That's why it's a poor analogy.

I never said it was pointless to regulate guns. Guns are regulated. I don't see any point in a license, though, except (as I stated previously) maybe for handguns.

Well to be fair any fuckwit with Internet access can learn how to make various kinds of explosives, most people just don't have a need for it. Plus blowing yourself up trying to actually make said explosives doesn't seem fun.

I would also agree, if any type of firearm should require a license it should be handguns.

[Big Jim P]

Gun ownership may not decrease crime, but it certainly does not increase it either (despite what the GCFs constantly howl), and it is a pretty good means of defending ones self against crime.

Once again, the benefits of gun ownership far outweigh the cost.

I concur. Crime is being caused by the inability to create more opportunity for the working class. We must improve their lot in order to lower homicides. Switzerland is a brilliant example of this.

Indeed, why not address the root cause(s) and in the meantime, stop restricting (or trying to restrict) the means of defending ones self against said crime.

In short, quit harassing the law-abiding gun owners.

[Quintium]

Gun control isn't going to help you. The people who murder people with guns will find guns anyway. They always do. What you need to do is tackle the culture that exists around guns in certain sub-sections of your society. Yeah, I'll mention that subculture by name - African-American ghetto culture. That's where almost half of all American homicides come from, so it's a pretty big issue.

[Big Jim P]

Have explosives (we'll say those that would qualify as a Destructive Device, just to avoid getting into a silly discussion about firecrackers) proliferated among civilians over the last century to the point that they outnumber cars? Have they been been available without a license since their introduction? They have not. However, guns have. That's why it's a poor analogy.

I never said it was pointless to regulate guns. Guns are regulated. I don't see any point in a license, though, except (as I stated previously) maybe for handguns.

You have to have a license to drive a car. Personally, i think it's moronic that guns have a relative absence of regulation. They're items designed to kill things.

1: cars are not an inherent human/civil/Constitutionally enumerated right.
2: not all guns are designed to kill.
3: Guns are already heavily regulated.
4: Carrying a gun in public (the equivalent of driving a car) in many places already require a permit. Mere ownership of either does not, (and should not).

[Big Jim P]

Gun control isn't going to help you. The people who murder people with guns will find guns anyway. They always do. What you need to do is tackle the culture that exists around guns in certain sub-sections of your society. Yeah, I'll mention that subculture by name - African-American ghetto culture. That's where almost half of all American homicides come from, so it's a pretty big issue.

Not to mention that there are plenty of other weapons that guns are used against defensively. They are even used legitimately against unarmed attackers.

[Imperializt Russia]

While I believe that every law-abiding American citizen has the right to own a firearm, I think the whole gun-buying process needs further regulation. Mandatory criminal and mental background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, limits/regulations on private sale and gun show purchases, and a set limit on how much ammunition one can buy at a given point.

Why do we need more restrictions on automatics? They've only been used to commit crimes like, twice, since the 1930's.

Well, legally-owned, NFA-registered ones, at least.

[Sevvania]

Have explosives (we'll say those that would qualify as a Destructive Device, just to avoid getting into a silly discussion about firecrackers) proliferated among civilians over the last century to the point that they outnumber cars? Have they been been available without a license since their introduction? They have not. However, guns have. That's why it's a poor analogy.

I never said it was pointless to regulate guns. Guns are regulated. I don't see any point in a license, though, except (as I stated previously) maybe for handguns.

You have to have a license to drive a car. Personally, i think it's moronic that guns have a relative absence of regulation. They're items designed to kill things.

It makes sense to have a license to drive a car, because when you operate a car, you're almost invariably around other people who are doing the same, where a delayed reaction, misjudgement, or random event can lead to (a) high speed collision(s). When you operate a firearm, you're generally not surrounded by people who are shooting beside you, in front of you, behind you, and in your general direction. You're generally not on a public road, but on private property. If you abide by three or four basic rules, the safety of yourself and those around you is almost guaranteed. The same is not true for cars.

There are many guns that aren't designed to kill things, such as target pistols. Even the ones that were "designed to kill" pests, game, etc. are not limited to that singular purpose: aside from cans and, the only thing I've ever killed with a firearm was a copperhead.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

You have to have a license to drive a car. Personally, i think it's moronic that guns have a relative absence of regulation. They're items designed to kill things.

1: cars are not an inherent human/civil/Constitutionally enumerated right.
2: not all guns are designed to kill.
3: Guns are already heavily regulated.
4: Carrying a gun in public (the equivalent of driving a car) in many places already require a permit. Mere ownership of either does not, (and should not).

1. and I think it's really idiotic that guns are. Law does not mean right.
2. every firearm is designed to cause lethal harm. That some of them generally don't is not a design feature, but a design flaw.
3. You can buy an assault rifle without a background check. That's not actual regulation.
4. Again, that's what i think is pure stupidity.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why do we need more restrictions on automatics? They've only been used to commit crimes like, twice, since the 1930's.

Well, legally-owned, NFA-registered ones, at least.

Very true, but I feel like it would be stupid to use crimes committed by already illegal weapons as a reason for more regulations.

I mean, if someone modifies a gun like that they're already breaking the law anyways. No point in slapping more regulations on Average Joe because of that.

[Kelinfort]

I concur. Crime is being caused by the inability to create more opportunity for the working class. We must improve their lot in order to lower homicides. Switzerland is a brilliant example of this.

Indeed, why not address the root cause(s) and in the meantime, stop restricting (or trying to restrict) the means of defending ones self against said crime.

In short, quit harassing the law-abiding gun owners.

Besides, crime rates have fallen precipitously since the 1980's. The crime wave that lasted from 1968-1990 appears to be over.

[Imperializt Russia]

3. You can buy an assault rifle without a background check. That's not actual regulation.

There is no truth in this statement.

[Spirit of Hope]

1: cars are not an inherent human/civil/Constitutionally enumerated right.
2: not all guns are designed to kill.
3: Guns are already heavily regulated.
4: Carrying a gun in public (the equivalent of driving a car) in many places already require a permit. Mere ownership of either does not, (and should not).

1. and I think it's really idiotic that guns are. Law does not mean right.
2. every firearm is designed to cause lethal harm. That some of them generally don't is not a design feature, but a design flaw.
3. You can buy an assault rifle without a background check. That's not actual regulation.
4. Again, that's what i think is pure stupidity.

1) Think that all you want.
2) No they aren't. Many firearms are far from lethal, and designed as such.
3) Only if it is a private purchase. Also what is an assault rifle? Do you mean a rifle with a selector switch? Which means it is fully automatic, and does require a background check even if it is a private purchase.
4) Why?