Gun Control

[Aethrys]

If you're worried about gun control, buy a box and put in range time. Talking about it won't solve your problem.

[The East Marches II]

It's another episode of "I live in a bubble", come back when you hit the real world fam.

I gave you four real world examples. "Fam".

Nah, you gave some ash and trash. I got one for you "Equifax" :^)

[Texan Imperium]

I agree with you and I think some people are getting way too worked up over it. You don't need to drag around your military level assault rifle when you're eating at MacDonald's. Get licensed and registered and you can buy a gun no problem. If for some reason you can't, too bad. And hidden firearms always felt like something that any person you could use to murder someone on the street and justify it as self defense.

[Telconi]

You see no issue with a government, hostile to the exercise of a human right, in keeping a comprehensive database of all of it's people who exercise said right?

This isn't a human right.

Please don't demean the many actual human rights abuses in the world by trying to put this on par with it kthnx.
Not to mention, that's just a meaningless non-argument. It can't be argued against, not because it's some beautifully simple truism but because there is nothing to argue against.

What is the alleged issue?
Indeed, when I pointed out that the UK has a full firearms registry that is presumably the matter of some form of publicly available record, I was given an example from New York State - notably, in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre - of a journalist outlet publishing the addresses of registered gun owners.

It is a human right.

All human rights are equal to one another, so please stop acting like your pet outrages are better than mine.

It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Generally one doesn't argue against questions, they answer them.

I fail to see how the provided map serves as a relevant argument, it''s simply an example of the problem.

[Telconi]

I agree with you and I think some people are getting way too worked up over it. You don't need to drag around your military level assault rifle when you're eating at MacDonald's. Get licensed and registered and you can buy a gun no problem. If for some reason you can't, too bad. And hidden firearms always felt like something that any person you could use to murder someone on the street and justify it as self defense.

Need is an absolute non-argument. The vast majority of rights are not strictly necessary, human beings are capable of survival without political franchise, religion, speech, an attorney, newspapers, juries, privacy, etc.

[Imperializt Russia]

This isn't a human right.

Please don't demean the many actual human rights abuses in the world by trying to put this on par with it kthnx.
Not to mention, that's just a meaningless non-argument. It can't be argued against, not because it's some beautifully simple truism but because there is nothing to argue against.

What is the alleged issue?
Indeed, when I pointed out that the UK has a full firearms registry that is presumably the matter of some form of publicly available record, I was given an example from New York State - notably, in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre - of a journalist outlet publishing the addresses of registered gun owners.

It is a human right.

All human rights are equal to one another, so please stop acting like your pet outrages are better than mine.

It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Generally one doesn't argue against questions, they answer them.

I fail to see how the provided map serves as a relevant argument, it''s simply an example of the problem.

A human right is a perceived value that all persons are deemed entitled to on the merit of them being people, with agency and the "right" to live a life free of undue judgement, harassment or persecution of the legal or violent varieties.

The right to bear arms isn't a human right.

[Telconi]

It is a human right.

All human rights are equal to one another, so please stop acting like your pet outrages are better than mine.

It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Generally one doesn't argue against questions, they answer them.

I fail to see how the provided map serves as a relevant argument, it''s simply an example of the problem.

A human right is a perceived value that all persons are deemed entitled to on the merit of them being people, with agency and the "right" to live a life free of undue judgement, harassment or persecution of the legal or violent varieties.

The right to bear arms isn't a human right.

First paragraph is pretty spot on, shame you ruined it with the last bit.

[Imperializt Russia]

A human right is a perceived value that all persons are deemed entitled to on the merit of them being people, with agency and the "right" to live a life free of undue judgement, harassment or persecution of the legal or violent varieties.

The right to bear arms isn't a human right.

First paragraph is pretty spot on, shame you ruined it with the last bit.

The only country to explicitly grant the right to bear arms is the United States.

Convicted felons are not permitted to own a firearm.
Even in the US, it's not a human right, let alone the perplexing suggestion that a "human right", extended to all people, is only recognised by one state.
The other 194 countries of the world are disadvantaged by not having this right, how, exactly?

[Telconi]

First paragraph is pretty spot on, shame you ruined it with the last bit.

The only country to explicitly grant the right to bear arms is the United States.

Convicted felons are not permitted to own a firearm.
Even in the US, it's not a human right, let alone the perplexing suggestion that a "human right", extended to all people, is only recognised by one state.
The other 194 countries of the world are disadvantaged by not having this right, how, exactly?

Not sure if the US is the only country, as I'm not familiar with every nation's constitution.

The felon thing is an issue, and one that hopefully progress can be made on, but at this point more effort is placed into not losing more of this right, rather than regaining portions.

What's the magic number of how many nations must respect a right before it counts? Was the first society to reject the institution of slavery wrong? The first democracy? Was Hammurabi a bad man for codifying laws simply because nobody else was doing it?

Well, uh, they don't have the protection to keep and bear arms... ... ...

[The East Marches II]

First paragraph is pretty spot on, shame you ruined it with the last bit.

The only country to explicitly grant the right to bear arms is the United States.

Convicted felons are not permitted to own a firearm.
Even in the US, it's not a human right, let alone the perplexing suggestion that a "human right", extended to all people, is only recognised by one state.
The other 194 countries of the world are disadvantaged by not having this right, how, exactly?

We are the only free country in the world so it does make sense :^)

[Victores]

I think we should remove all regulations are firearms for people not convicted of crimes or on the terror watchlist. I really want a T-72 tank with its gun still able to fire.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I think we should remove all regulations are firearms for people not convicted of crimes or on the terror watchlist. I really want a T-72 tank with its gun still able to fire.

I'd hate to see the credit card charge for the fuel fill up on a T-72. 320 US gallons of diesel is going to be kind of spendy, especially since it gets less than 1 mpg.

[Telconi]

I think we should remove all regulations are firearms for people not convicted of crimes or on the terror watchlist. I really want a T-72 tank with its gun still able to fire.

I'd hate to see the credit card charge for the fuel fill up on a T-72. 320 US gallons of diesel is going to be kind of spendy, especially since it gets less than 1 mpg.

Worth it.

[Spirit of Hope]

I think we should remove all regulations are firearms for people not convicted of crimes or on the terror watchlist. I really want a T-72 tank with its gun still able to fire.

See here I have sever disagreements with you. Why on the world should people on the terror watchlist be restricted, since they have not been tried in a court of law, or even charged with a crime.

Besides that I also am alright with there being some restrictions on full auto and explosive weapons.

P.S. You can already buy tanks in the United States, they just have to be disarmed.

The only country to explicitly grant the right to bear arms is the United States.

Convicted felons are not permitted to own a firearm.
Even in the US, it's not a human right, let alone the perplexing suggestion that a "human right", extended to all people, is only recognised by one state.
The other 194 countries of the world are disadvantaged by not having this right, how, exactly?

We are the only free country in the world so it does make sense :^)

I find it hard to argue that firearms ownership is a human right. I can agree that self defense is a human right, and that guns are one of the better avenues for self defense. But find it very US centric to claim that means guns are a human right. There are plenty of free countries that have rather sever restrictions on firearms.

[The of Japan]

I think we should remove all regulations are firearms for people not convicted of crimes or on the terror watchlist. I really want a T-72 tank with its gun still able to fire.

See here I have sever disagreements with you. Why on the world should people on the terror watchlist be restricted, since they have not been tried in a court of law, or even charged with a crime.

Besides that I also am alright with there being some restrictions on full auto and explosive weapons.

P.S. You can already buy tanks in the United States, they just have to be disarmed.

We are the only free country in the world so it does make sense :^)

I find it hard to argue that firearms ownership is a human right. I can agree that self defense is a human right, and that guns are one of the better avenues for self defense. But find it very US centric to claim that means guns are a human right. There are plenty of free countries that have rather sever restrictions on firearms.

quite a few put on the "no fly list" are hardly terrorists, just people who opposed Obama and democrats. (as of 2016)

[Spirit of Hope]

See here I have sever disagreements with you. Why on the world should people on the terror watchlist be restricted, since they have not been tried in a court of law, or even charged with a crime.

Besides that I also am alright with there being some restrictions on full auto and explosive weapons.

P.S. You can already buy tanks in the United States, they just have to be disarmed.



I find it hard to argue that firearms ownership is a human right. I can agree that self defense is a human right, and that guns are one of the better avenues for self defense. But find it very US centric to claim that means guns are a human right. There are plenty of free countries that have rather sever restrictions on firearms.

quite a few put on the "no fly list" are hardly terrorists, just people who opposed Obama and democrats. (as of 2016)

There are people on there from paperwork mistakes and people put on the list because they joined anti war protests. It really is a really bad violation of civil rights, but shouting terrorism tends to make people ignore that bit.

[Nordengrund]

I see both sides of the issue.

[Imperializt Russia]

See here I have sever disagreements with you. Why on the world should people on the terror watchlist be restricted, since they have not been tried in a court of law, or even charged with a crime.

Besides that I also am alright with there being some restrictions on full auto and explosive weapons.

P.S. You can already buy tanks in the United States, they just have to be disarmed.



I find it hard to argue that firearms ownership is a human right. I can agree that self defense is a human right, and that guns are one of the better avenues for self defense. But find it very US centric to claim that means guns are a human right. There are plenty of free countries that have rather sever restrictions on firearms.

quite a few put on the "no fly list" are hardly terrorists, just people who opposed Obama and democrats. (as of 2016)

There were 47,000 people on the list in 2013, I doubt it's "quite a few".

Wikipedia has a long list of false positives (as the no-fly list is merely a "name-checking" system that operates on partial matches) and suspected "abuses" of entering people onto the list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_Li ... _positives
The cases of possible abuse listed seem to be exclusively left-wing or otherwise anti-Bush persons. The more worrying examples to me:

• On August 19, 2009, Air France flight AF-438 was not allowed to cross into U.S. airspace because of the presence on board of one Paul-Emile Dupret, a civil servant at the European Parliament for 18 years, who had written some articles criticizing the EU's policies toward Latin America because they are aligned too closely with those of the United States.[55] Even though AF-438 did not cross into U.S. airspace, Paul-Emile Dupret was not allowed to fly to Montreal, where he was to take part in an official delegation of the European Parliament in Ottawa and Montreal. On March 20, 2016 at Charles DeGaulle Airport, Air France prevented Dupret from boarding and suggested that he speak with a US security agent in the airport.
• In November 2002 Salon reported that the No-Fly program seemed "to be netting mostly priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups." Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader’s Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2000, was prevented from flying to Europe on business in October 2002. He was repeatedly pulled out of line, held for questioning until his flight left, then told falsely he could take a later flight or depart from a different airport. Barbara Olshansky, then Assistant Legal Director for the Center for Constitutional Rights, noted that she and several of her colleagues received special attention on numerous occasions. On at least one occasion, she was ordered to pull her trousers down in view of other passengers.[62] It is not clear why Stuber was targeted. He was initially pulled aside after loudly declaring to a fellow passenger, "George Bush is as dumb as a rock." He was on the list for over two years but was later allowed to fly.

There are also these two examples which are highly subjective - the first is a possible false positive (the person raised anti-Bush positions as a possibility) and the other is a recollection which is highly politically charged.

• Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as a Democrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, "This could just be a government screw-up, but I don't know, and they won't tell me."[37] Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple in Toronto
• Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass "because I [Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list." The airline employee asked, "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." Replied Murphy, "I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution." To which the airline employee responded, "That'll do it."

[Telconi]

I think we should remove all regulations are firearms for people not convicted of crimes or on the terror watchlist. I really want a T-72 tank with its gun still able to fire.

See here I have sever disagreements with you. Why on the world should people on the terror watchlist be restricted, since they have not been tried in a court of law, or even charged with a crime.

Besides that I also am alright with there being some restrictions on full auto and explosive weapons.

P.S. You can already buy tanks in the United States, they just have to be disarmed.

We are the only free country in the world so it does make sense :^)

I find it hard to argue that firearms ownership is a human right. I can agree that self defense is a human right, and that guns are one of the better avenues for self defense. But find it very US centric to claim that means guns are a human right. There are plenty of free countries that have rather sever restrictions on firearms.

You can actually own a functionally armed tank by U.S. Law, it just requires a lot of legal hoops, and a mountain of paperwork.

Guns are a human right because of self defense (both individual and collective) being human rights. Telling a person "you can defend yourself, but must do so disarmed" would be like me saying "you have freedom of religion, but all religious texts other than the King James Bible are banned" it inherently destroys actual freedom of religion. Just as banning firearms removes functional right to self defense.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's actually more like saying that since the UDHR says you have the human right to seek work, it therefore grants you the human right to own and operate a car to get to work.

It doesn't.

[Spirit of Hope]

See here I have sever disagreements with you. Why on the world should people on the terror watchlist be restricted, since they have not been tried in a court of law, or even charged with a crime.

Besides that I also am alright with there being some restrictions on full auto and explosive weapons.

P.S. You can already buy tanks in the United States, they just have to be disarmed.



I find it hard to argue that firearms ownership is a human right. I can agree that self defense is a human right, and that guns are one of the better avenues for self defense. But find it very US centric to claim that means guns are a human right. There are plenty of free countries that have rather sever restrictions on firearms.

You can actually own a functionally armed tank by U.S. Law, it just requires a lot of legal hoops, and a mountain of paperwork.

Guns are a human right because of self defense (both individual and collective) being human rights. Telling a person "you can defend yourself, but must do so disarmed" would be like me saying "you have freedom of religion, but all religious texts other than the King James Bible are banned" it inherently destroys actual freedom of religion. Just as banning firearms removes functional right to self defense.

Hard to say removing firearms functionally removes the right of self defense since you are still quite capable of defending yourself without a firearm, and people do it all the time. While I will agree that firearms are one of the best means of self defense, having large public access to them does have negative consequences. It is for a society to decide if they are accepting of the trade offs there or not, I'm quite glad the US says citizens are allowed to have guns. But I think it is stupid to say societies who make the other decision are wrong.

People collectively tend to defend themselves by gathering together and forming governments which then fund organizations for the common defense. It is almost impossible to carry out a collective defense based entirely off of what weapons individuals own.

[Telconi]

It's actually more like saying that since the UDHR says you have the human right to seek work, it therefore grants you the human right to own and operate a car to get to work.

It doesn't.

Depends on where and what you'really doing, most places have effective ways for a person to get to work other than a personal vehicle.

[Victores]

I think we should remove all regulations are firearms for people not convicted of crimes or on the terror watchlist. I really want a T-72 tank with its gun still able to fire.

See here I have sever disagreements with you. Why on the world should people on the terror watchlist be restricted, since they have not been tried in a court of law, or even charged with a crime.

Besides that I also am alright with there being some restrictions on full auto and explosive weapons.

P.S. You can already buy tanks in the United States, they just have to be disarmed.

Maybe should do something about people on the terror watchlist.

[The of Japan]

will heavy gun control work in the US, given that there are already so many guns that the government is hopeless in stopping people from obtaining them, legally or not? I honestly doubt it.

[Fartsniffage]

It's actually more like saying that since the UDHR says you have the human right to seek work, it therefore grants you the human right to own and operate a car to get to work.

It doesn't.

Depends on where and what you'really doing, most places have effective ways for a person to get to work other than a personal vehicle.

Most people will never need to draw a firearm in self-defence. What's your point?