The general gun control thread

[North Calaveras]

that's not logical at all, because murder is a crime/act while guns are inanimate objects, so you can't really apply that logic here.

And people actively use guns to kill others. Are there more homicides by drowning in a pool than guns?

Dead is dead, just because the act is committed by a person doesn't make it any different at the end of the day.

if you really wanted to stop death then you would be against pools since they cause more deaths than guns.

[Sociobiology]

a universal background check or general firearms permit only makes it harder for criminals to get firearms.

This depends entirely on how such are instituted. Because with any cost associated, it makes it harder for non-criminals as well. In much the same way that Voter ID requirements make it harder for the ineligible to vote but also almost always possess particulars wherein they hurt the poor.

sure but then the issue is how it should be implemented not whether we should have one.

[Llamalandia]

that's not logical at all, because murder is a crime/act while guns are inanimate objects, so you can't really apply that logic here.

And people actively use guns to kill others. Are there more homicides by drowning in a pool than guns?

Ok so the standard for regulation is intential homicide now? So we don't need to say, have simulate engine noise on electric cars to prevent blind people from walking in front of them now. I mean after all the driver wasn't trying to kill them. Likewise that argument excludes all the accidental gun deaths and weakens the need for gun regulation.

[New Genoa]

And people actively use guns to kill others. Are there more homicides by drowning in a pool than guns?

Dead is dead, just because the act is committed by a person doesn't make it any different at the end of the day.

if you really wanted to stop death then you would be against pools since they cause more deaths than guns.

Safety regulations exist for pools...

[North Calaveras]

Dead is dead, just because the act is committed by a person doesn't make it any different at the end of the day.

if you really wanted to stop death then you would be against pools since they cause more deaths than guns.

Safety regulations exist for pools...

Many guns have saftey's built into them, so your point?

[Llamalandia]

Dead is dead, just because the act is committed by a person doesn't make it any different at the end of the day.

if you really wanted to stop death then you would be against pools since they cause more deaths than guns.

Safety regulations exist for pools...

Oh really and how are they enforced for private pools? Last time I checked they only have a life guard at the public ones, and heck sometimes not even then so...

[New Genoa]

And people actively use guns to kill others. Are there more homicides by drowning in a pool than guns?

Ok so the standard for regulation is intential homicide now? So we don't need to say, have simulate engine noise on electric cars to prevent blind people from walking in front of them now. I mean after all the driver wasn't trying to kill them. Likewise that argument excludes all the accidental gun deaths and weakens the need for gun regulation.

Um, no that's not what I said. I was responding to the ridiculous notion that more people drowning means we shouldn't regulate other dangerous activities.

[Llamalandia]

This depends entirely on how such are instituted. Because with any cost associated, it makes it harder for non-criminals as well. In much the same way that Voter ID requirements make it harder for the ineligible to vote but also almost always possess particulars wherein they hurt the poor.

sure but then the issue is how it should be implemented not whether we should have one.

I'd agree with that provided antigun groups agree to disband and everyone agrees not to push for more gun laws.

[Occupied Deutschland]

This depends entirely on how such are instituted. Because with any cost associated, it makes it harder for non-criminals as well. In much the same way that Voter ID requirements make it harder for the ineligible to vote but also almost always possess particulars wherein they hurt the poor.

sure but then the issue is how it should be implemented not whether we should have one.

Indeed.

[New Genoa]

Safety regulations exist for pools...

Oh really and how are they enforced for private pools? Last time I checked they only have a life guard at the public ones, and heck sometimes not even then so...

http://www.dos.ny.gov/dcea/pools.htm

[North Calaveras]

Ok so the standard for regulation is intential homicide now? So we don't need to say, have simulate engine noise on electric cars to prevent blind people from walking in front of them now. I mean after all the driver wasn't trying to kill them. Likewise that argument excludes all the accidental gun deaths and weakens the need for gun regulation.

Um, no that's not what I said. I was responding to the ridiculous notion that more people drowning means we shouldn't [i]regulate other dangerous activities.[/i]

what do you mean regulate dangerous activities? gun-ownership is not a dangerous activity.

[Llamalandia]

Ok so the standard for regulation is intential homicide now? So we don't need to say, have simulate engine noise on electric cars to prevent blind people from walking in front of them now. I mean after all the driver wasn't trying to kill them. Likewise that argument excludes all the accidental gun deaths and weakens the need for gun regulation.

Um, no that's not what I said. I was responding to the ridiculous notion that more people drowning means we shouldn't regulate other dangerous activities.

Well you have to regulate every equal harm equally. If pools kill 10k people a year and guns kill 10k people a year they are equally dangerous and should be regulated at the same level.

[Sociobiology]

sure but then the issue is how it should be implemented not whether we should have one.

I'd agree with that provided antigun groups agree to disband and everyone agrees not to push for more gun laws.

so second amendment good first amendment bad?
there are still people who want us to join back up with England, if you want unicorns and faeries before you will consider something reasonable just admit to yourself you aren't interested in sensible gun laws.

[Spirit of Hope]

Dead is dead, just because the act is committed by a person doesn't make it any different at the end of the day.

if you really wanted to stop death then you would be against pools since they cause more deaths than guns.

Safety regulations exist for pools...

Guns also have laws banning who they can be sold to, controlling there construction, transportation, areas where they are and are not allowed, etc.

This depends entirely on how such are instituted. Because with any cost associated, it makes it harder for non-criminals as well. In much the same way that Voter ID requirements make it harder for the ineligible to vote but also almost always possess particulars wherein they hurt the poor.

sure but then the issue is how it should be implemented not whether we should have one.

Almost everyone I have argued with on here has agreed to a universal back ground check requirement, so long as the government makes the system available to the public to use. I'm iffy on that, and have also proposed making negligent gun sale a crime, but that just creates more hassle.

The question usually becomes what more do people want that bothers me.

[New Genoa]

sure but then the issue is how it should be implemented not whether we should have one.

I'd agree with that provided antigun groups agree to disband and everyone agrees not to push for more gun laws.

Disband the NRA while we're at it.

[Sociobiology]

Um, no that's not what I said. I was responding to the ridiculous notion that more people drowning means we shouldn't regulate other dangerous activities.

Well you have to regulate every equal harm equally. If pools kill 10k people a year and guns kill 10k people a year they are equally dangerous and should be regulated at the same level.

pools are regulated and have been for a while.

[Llamalandia]

Oh really and how are they enforced for private pools? Last time I checked they only have a life guard at the public ones, and heck sometimes not even then so...

http://www.dos.ny.gov/dcea/pools.htm

Sorry can't follow the link at the moment but are those regs actually enforced? I mean, when is the last time the cops came and arrested someone for having an illegal pool in the backyard? Also ironic you chose New York given they have pretty tight gun regulation as well.

[North Calaveras]

I'd agree with that provided antigun groups agree to disband and everyone agrees not to push for more gun laws.

so second amendment good first amendment bad?
there are still people who want us to join back up with England, if you want unicorns and faeries before you will consider something reasonable just admit to yourself you aren't interested in sensible gun laws.

what are sensible gun laws because those are in short supply

[Sociobiology]

Safety regulations exist for pools...

Guns also have laws banning who they can be sold to, controlling there construction, transportation, areas where they are and are not allowed, etc.

sure but then the issue is how it should be implemented not whether we should have one.

Almost everyone I have argued with on here has agreed to a universal back ground check requirement, so long as the government makes the system available to the public to use. I'm iffy on that, and have also proposed making negligent gun sale a crime, but that just creates more hassle.

The question usually becomes what more do people want that bothers me.

welcome to democracy.

[Llamalandia]

I'd agree with that provided antigun groups agree to disband and everyone agrees not to push for more gun laws.

Disband the NRA while we're at it.

Umm maybe. Provided you and everyone else promise not to push for new gun laws ok I'd at least entertain that notion.

[Llamalandia]

Guns also have laws banning who they can be sold to, controlling there construction, transportation, areas where they are and are not allowed, etc.



Almost everyone I have argued with on here has agreed to a universal back ground check requirement, so long as the government makes the system available to the public to use. I'm iffy on that, and have also proposed making negligent gun sale a crime, but that just creates more hassle.

The question usually becomes what more do people want that bothers me.

welcome to democracy.

Fortunately we have. Constitution which contains the bill of rights which includes the second amend,ent which protects gun owners from democracy (at least as a simple majority rule system).

[Llamalandia]

I'd agree with that provided antigun groups agree to disband and everyone agrees not to push for more gun laws.

so second amendment good first amendment bad?
there are still people who want us to join back up with England, if you want unicorns and faeries before you will consider something reasonable just admit to yourself you aren't interested in sensible gun laws.

No but if we are going to restrict or regulate one, well we should be able to regulate the other as well.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Guns also have laws banning who they can be sold to, controlling there construction, transportation, areas where they are and are not allowed, etc.



Almost everyone I have argued with on here has agreed to a universal back ground check requirement, so long as the government makes the system available to the public to use. I'm iffy on that, and have also proposed making negligent gun sale a crime, but that just creates more hassle.

The question usually becomes what more do people want that bothers me.

welcome to democracy.

"The system that really sucks when a bunch of manipulative liars exploit members of the public by appealing to their base fears based on ignorance and emotional appeals in order to gain and secure political power for themselves and their associates."

It's a mouthful as a motto, but I'll see it become one someday!

[Sociobiology]

so second amendment good first amendment bad?
there are still people who want us to join back up with England, if you want unicorns and faeries before you will consider something reasonable just admit to yourself you aren't interested in sensible gun laws.

what are sensible gun laws because those are in short supply

from an old thread

My proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires a background check, a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15), a written test, a one afternoon class on firearms safety, and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the licence can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales

Edit: things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

so second amendment good first amendment bad?
there are still people who want us to join back up with England, if you want unicorns and faeries before you will consider something reasonable just admit to yourself you aren't interested in sensible gun laws.

No but if we are going to restrict or regulate one, well we should be able to regulate the other as well.

That's not how it works. Congress cannot infringe upon free speech, and Congress cannot keep you from owning weapons, but the 2nd doesn't mention not being allowed to ban certain weapons, or dictating how arms may be sold.