America's """Gun""" Problem...

[Elepis]

My AR has never killed anyone.

Armalite sold me a defective product apparently.

Nor mine, lol

But that does not mean that one day it won't

[Prussia-Steinbach]

...

Sandy Hook concerned 26 killed within the course of about a quarter of an hour.

tens then, it is still innocent lives. The "minutes" was metaphorical but people still died

Could've killed the exact same number with a .22 pistol.

[Conserative Morality]

A criminal will commit crimes, no matter the weapon.

Yeah, but certain weapons make certain crimes easier. A man can run from a fellow with a knife; a guy with a crossbow can only effectively threaten one person at a time, a guy with a gun is limited to those within los (more or less), a criminal with military-grade explosives will have trouble discriminating between victims in an area, etc.

[Hyggemata]

Then martial law it is. A couple of weeks of martial law is better than eternal gun violence.

You obviously haven't been reading my post carefully. Zero (0) guns, in big print.

How the hell do you do that? What if the military turns on you? They're supposed to abide to constitutional orders, and they are "allowed" to mutiny should they receive unconstitutional orders. The only thing more unconstitutional than this would be to round up blacks or shut down the newspapers or TV news. Everyone would hate you. Maybe not CA, but for the most part, there would be secessionists everywhere, a mutiny of the military, no armed loyalists, police departments that are gonna be fairly uncooperative or completely opposed to you, and concerns about what you're gonna do next, if you're not being besieged in the National Mall.

Where there's a (democratic) will, there's a (decent) way.

I'm not saying that I'll be implementing this policy. In fact, even if I were elected to the presidency by some freak accident, since I am not a native and thus debarred, I would not implement this policy unless I were elected with it in my manifesto. If I had it in my manifesto, then I will implement it; because, when you're elected, your mind and body are not yours to have anymore, but dedicated to realization of the manifesto for which you have been elected.

[Elepis]

I mean ffs long arms aren't even the problem. The problem is when someone can go around unnoticed with a firearm or multiple firearms. Few people commit mass murder or rob banks with semiautomatic hunting rifles or shotguns, because people notice you when you carry a big-ass gun down the street, even if they don't necessarily say anything or stop you. Surprise is the true weapon of the criminal.

A criminal will commit crimes, no matter the weapon.

then explain the far lower murder rates in Britain, or even India (which has strict gun laws)

[The East Marches]

...

Sandy Hook concerned 26 killed within the course of about a quarter of an hour.

tens then, it is still innocent lives. The "minutes" was metaphorical but people still died

More people die of swimming pool accidents. Shall we ban those too? Perhaps demand that the deep of the pool be filled in?

[Wolfundwood]

Yeah and my knives were designed to kill people too, should we ban those next?

some knives, like the zombie killing knives from Amazon yes. Kitchen knives, no. You cannot kill tens/hundreds of people with a kitchen knife

Mass stabbings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_stabbings

[Conserative Morality]

Damn... even I didn't know that.

I mean, I'm all for gun control, but people really overestimate the effectiveness of mass shootings. It's actually really hard to plink person after person even if you're 100% ready to get down to senseless killing.

[Elepis]

do they, you have had no referendum on it? and a democratically elected President has tried and somewhat succeed in curbing gun rights

Most Americans support gun rights over even expanding gun control at all.

The US will never ban firearms.

call a referendum, vote on it and I will believe you. At the moment I can see that a man who supports gun control got elected, that seems to contradict your point

[Kernen]

Nor mine, lol

But that does not mean that one day it won't

So we strip people of their rights, as guaranteed by our highest court in the land, because they might commit a crime, despite having no proof of intention? That flies in the face of every single tenant of jurisprudence we hold dear.

[Hyggemata]

Not any more than you do, but I am committed to preventing it from happening when it already is.

What about marching CIA agents into the State Department to search for communists? Is not that totalitarian? Let it be totalitarian then, so long as the people back it with their vote.

That CIA comment isn't accurate nor a valid example. Your opinion on rights and due process worries me. Are you a foreigner by chance?

We have been over this, and it is not the first time that I have disagreed with you.

But let it be known that I most resolutely uphold right and due process, even when new rights are established and old ones deprecated, even when due process is amended and amplified.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

A criminal will commit crimes, no matter the weapon.

then explain the far lower murder rates in Britain, or even India (which has strict gun laws)

Incomparable to the US. Wayyyyy more guns per capita. Gun laws don't work the same here.

Also, don't care. My guns. My right. Not your business.

[Kernen]

Most Americans support gun rights over even expanding gun control at all.

The US will never ban firearms.

call a referendum, vote on it and I will believe you. At the moment I can see that a man who supports gun control got elected, that seems to contradict your point

That assumes that the issue of gun control was the only issue involved in the election. This is a false assumption.

[Elepis]

Really? You actually think that you deserve to own a gun more than another person deserves to live?

You think you deserve to drive a car or sell alcohol, or sell cigarettes more than another person deserves to live?
Far more people die from those.

No, I don't. The right to life is ultimate for me

[Big Jim P]

If you can't see the difference between me owning guns for my own enjoyment and marrying a child I don't even know what to say, that's just full pants on head retarded.

No it was never comparable, Northern Ireland in the Troubles was not comparable to the United States. It never had 100,000,000 law abiding gun owners who just want to be left alone.

No, I can't see the difference at all. Why would anyone think they have the right to a gun? To me and most people outside America it is like saying you have the right to potential marry a child.

No, we had an entire region racked by ethno-religious conflict, but now we don't thanks in part to gun control

does the "right" to a gun trump the right to life?

Guns are used to DEFEND life. Duh.

[Stormopolis]

But that does not mean that one day it won't

So we strip people of their rights, as guaranteed by our highest court in the land, because they might commit a crime, despite having no proof of intention? That flies in the face of every single tenant of jurisprudence we hold dear.

That's a really huge slippery slope. It's like in Minority Report. Technically those people are innocent, but they will commit a crime (which they won't if they are stopped). God I'm smart but time is a dimension I am not going to get into here.

[The East Marches]

How the hell do you do that? What if the military turns on you? They're supposed to abide to constitutional orders, and they are "allowed" to mutiny should they receive unconstitutional orders. The only thing more unconstitutional than this would be to round up blacks or shut down the newspapers or TV news. Everyone would hate you. Maybe not CA, but for the most part, there would be secessionists everywhere, a mutiny of the military, no armed loyalists, police departments that are gonna be fairly uncooperative or completely opposed to you, and concerns about what you're gonna do next, if you're not being besieged in the National Mall.

Where there's a (democratic) will, there's a (decent) way.

I'm not saying that I'll be implementing this policy. In fact, even if I were elected to the presidency by some freak accident, since I am not a native and thus debarred, I would not implement this policy unless I were elected with it in my manifesto. If I had it in my manifesto, then I will implement it; because, when you're elected, your mind and body are not yours to have anymore, but dedicated to realization of the manifesto for which you have been elected.

If there was a will, they would have pasted an amendment repealing it. We do have the proper mechanisms for changing things. We are a Republic, not a pure Democracy.

[Elepis]

some knives, like the zombie killing knives from Amazon yes. Kitchen knives, no. You cannot kill tens/hundreds of people with a kitchen knife

Who cares, really? I and most Americans don't want nanny-state bullshit, if I'm not infringing on someone elses rights leave me the hell alone and let me do what I wish.

Oh, because the UK is such a nanny state, please save us from our free health care and low murder rates

[Wolfundwood]

Also, don't care. My guns. My right. Not your business.

That pretty much sums it up for me

[Conserative Morality]

Oh, because the UK is such a nanny state, please save us from our free health care and low murder rates

You also still have blasphemy laws and arrested a guy for teaching his dog to be a wee Nazi.

[Hyggemata]

then explain the far lower murder rates in Britain, or even India (which has strict gun laws)

Incomparable to the US. Wayyyyy more guns per capita. Gun laws don't work the same here.

Also, don't care. My guns. My right. Not your business.

Too bad, because you live in a democratic country, and your rights are subject to alteration at the whims of the people and states. Don't like it? Go live in Antarctica, where there is no state to restrict your freedoms or guarantee your rights.

[Freedom in Unition]

There's a huge difference between popular distaste and encroaching upon people's rights to privacy. Popular distaste won't come to guns, it'll come to the government. What's the reaction when every single house across the country is searched top to bottom with no warrant? That's how to spark massive secessionist movements. You won't have a police force even slightly comparable to the nationwide riots. And then you'll have to bring in the military. You might be able to stop them then, but then what have you created? An authoritarian shithole of a country, and millions of dead or arrested citizens that would have never done anything wrong if you'd kept your grabby little hands out. Crime rate increases, but then it's slowed by military intervention. But military intervention, in itself, is a crime.

You, sir/madam, are mistaken. By no means do I propose carrying out this policy without the prior consent of the people. Everything I wrote are hinged on this understanding. In fact, I think the best way to do so is for a candidate to announce this in his manifesto, and let him and his manifesto be elected to office with the mandate of the people. I am a lifelong liberal democrat, and I would not support any police whatsoever without a mandate backing it.

Let the criminals win then? A citizen could take a shot, and the worst that could happen is they die on their own terms. The criminals wouldn't shoot everyone else under any circumstance; too much money, and too difficult a spot to get out of.

That is what insurance companies are for.

I guess you can propose whatever you want. But I kind of doubt anyone would go for it. And insurance companies are for what exactly? Paying everybody effected in a huge bank robbery? And let the criminals run off with that much money? That's how to make an unstoppable kingpin.

[The East Marches]

That CIA comment isn't accurate nor a valid example. Your opinion on rights and due process worries me. Are you a foreigner by chance?

We have been over this, and it is not the first time that I have disagreed with you.

But let it be known that I most resolutely uphold right and due process, even when new rights are established and old ones deprecated, even when due process is amended and amplified.

Do I know you by another name?

[Elepis]

then explain the far lower murder rates in Britain, or even India (which has strict gun laws)

Incomparable to the US. Wayyyyy more guns per capita. Gun laws don't work the same here.

Also, don't care. My guns. My right. Not your business.

Get rid of the guns and there will be fewer guns!

Also, I don't care about your supposed rights "My life. My right. Not your business"

[Wolfundwood]

You think you deserve to drive a car or sell alcohol, or sell cigarettes more than another person deserves to live?
Far more people die from those.

No, I don't. The right to life is ultimate for me

So then you don't drive? or anything else that could possibly 1:1,000,000 kill someone else?