Gun Bans

[Tagmatium]

From that source: "In response to various comments, please note: There are 50 states in the USA. The graph above does not show them all, it shows the lower end. I would have thought this was obvious, but apparently not …"

So the UK's murder rate is higher than the US states at the lower end of the graph.

Not brilliant, but the graph doesn't display the higher rates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... land-wales

One of the sources I found, which says that, on the whole, crime is down across the UK.

The Libertarian article said that the UK has a lower murder rate 'than the USA as a whole' but how can you explain 4 states that have lower murder rates than the UK? It seems banning guns does not drop the murder rate to 0 like liberals would have us believe.

Eh, they do all have a significantly smaller population than the UK, which isn't really taken account of in those graphs. Each of those states has between 600,000 and 1,300,000 people, compared to the population of 56,000,000 for England and Wales. Which is pretty good, all told. I'm not sure what it would be if there were more firearms, but I don't really want to jump into such groundless statements.

What would you do if you heard a man break your windown in the kitchen? You are in your bedroom? The police live 15 minutes drive from your home (assuming they will rush out). Can you hide for 15 minutes while you wait for them? The man broke in at night knowing somebody was probably home. He might want to rape you. The liberal would say call the police, hide, let the man rape you once he finds you (which is fine because he is a minority and came from a broken home), and then the man runs away out the back door when he hears sirens. Maybe he gets caught but you still live with the memory of rape and liberals cheer because no gun was used.

In a libertarian society this is what would happen. You hear the broken window, you jump out of bed and grab your gun from the closet (or under the bed), you turn on the light and you wait. The intruder comes in. You hold up the gun and he runs away or comes towards you and you fire. He gets hit and runs or he tries again and you kill him. You then call the police. You are not raped.

If he is killed than society lost a dangerous reject. If he runs away than nobody was hurt.

If you like the first scenario than say yes to Obama and his buddies that hate gun rights. Say no to guns. If you like the latter scenario than say yes to the libertarian party and gun rights.

Or, perhaps, he shot you back. Or even first.

AND THEN HE MOLESTED YOUR CORPSE, since you've got a rape thing going on.

I dunno, weird fantasy land posts like that just seem to weaken everything.

[New England and The Maritimes]

What would you do if you heard a man break your windown in the kitchen? You are in your bedroom? The police live 15 minutes drive from your home (assuming they will rush out). Can you hide for 15 minutes while you wait for them? The man broke in at night knowing somebody was probably home. He might want to rape you. The liberal would say call the police, hide, let the man rape you once he finds you (which is fine because he is a minority and came from a broken home), and then the man runs away out the back door when he hears sirens. Maybe he gets caught but you still live with the memory of rape and liberals cheer because no gun was used.

In a libertarian society this is what would happen. You hear the broken window, you jump out of bed and grab your gun from the closet (or under the bed), you turn on the light and you wait. The intruder comes in. You hold up the gun and he runs away or comes towards you and you fire. He gets hit and runs or he tries again and you kill him. You then call the police. You are not raped.

If he is killed than society lost a dangerous reject. If he runs away than nobody was hurt.

If you like the first scenario than say yes to Obama and his buddies that hate gun rights. Say no to guns. If you like the latter scenario than say yes to the libertarian party and gun rights.

You heard it here first, folks. "Liberals," yep, they love rape. That's exactly what is going on.

[Xsyne]

From that source: "In response to various comments, please note: There are 50 states in the USA. The graph above does not show them all, it shows the lower end. I would have thought this was obvious, but apparently not …"

So the UK's murder rate is higher than the US states at the lower end of the graph.

Not brilliant, but the graph doesn't display the higher rates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... land-wales

One of the sources I found, which says that, on the whole, crime is down across the UK.

The Libertarian article said that the UK has a lower murder rate 'than the USA as a whole' but how can you explain 4 states that have lower murder rates than the UK?

Do you understand what "as a whole" means?

[Nua Corda]

From that source: "In response to various comments, please note: There are 50 states in the USA. The graph above does not show them all, it shows the lower end. I would have thought this was obvious, but apparently not …"

So the UK's murder rate is higher than the US states at the lower end of the graph.

Not brilliant, but the graph doesn't display the higher rates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... land-wales

One of the sources I found, which says that, on the whole, crime is down across the UK.

The Libertarian article said that the UK has a lower murder rate 'than the USA as a whole' but how can you explain 4 states that have lower murder rates than the UK? It seems banning guns does not drop the murder rate to 0 like liberals would have us believe.

What would you do if you heard a man break your windown in the kitchen? You are in your bedroom? The police live 15 minutes drive from your home (assuming they will rush out). Can you hide for 15 minutes while you wait for them? The man broke in at night knowing somebody was probably home. He might want to rape you. The liberal would say call the police, hide, let the man rape you once he finds you (which is fine because he is a minority and came from a broken home), and then the man runs away out the back door when he hears sirens. Maybe he gets caught but you still live with the memory of rape and liberals cheer because no gun was used.

In a libertarian society this is what would happen. You hear the broken window, you jump out of bed and grab your gun from the closet (or under the bed), you turn on the light and you wait. The intruder comes in. You hold up the gun and he runs away or comes towards you and you fire. He gets hit and runs or he tries again and you kill him. You then call the police. You are not raped.

If he is killed than society lost a dangerous reject. If he runs away than nobody was hurt.

If you like the first scenario than say yes to Obama and his buddies that hate gun rights. Say no to guns. If you like the latter scenario than say yes to the libertarian party and gun rights.

In a libertarian society MegaCorporations would dominate everything, and take your guns away so when the Corporate Doom Squads came to shut down your Mom & Pop Shop, you can't fight back.

[Salandriagado]

From that source: "In response to various comments, please note: There are 50 states in the USA. The graph above does not show them all, it shows the lower end. I would have thought this was obvious, but apparently not …"

So the UK's murder rate is higher than the US states at the lower end of the graph.

Not brilliant, but the graph doesn't display the higher rates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... land-wales

One of the sources I found, which says that, on the whole, crime is down across the UK.

The Libertarian article said that the UK has a lower murder rate 'than the USA as a whole' but how can you explain 4 states that have lower murder rates than the UK? It seems banning guns does not drop the murder rate to 0 like liberals would have us believe.

Literally nobody has ever claimed that, or anything like it.

[Caninope]

I don't see the harm in illegalizing assault weapons. A pistol may be a good defense weapon. A bushmaster is like using a minefield to defend against a few wolves.

I fail to see what's wrong with using an assault weapon for home defense.

[Caninope]

Stupidity, or she is planning on shooting someone.

Or the gun is not loaded, and even if she does shoot someone, it would be a member of the US Senate, so no big deal.

A drum magazine has been loaded.

Any time a magazine has been loaded (or actually any time at all), you keep your finger away from the trigger and the safety, unless you're planning to shoot.

[Caninope]

For the purposes of safety, if you have not cleared the weapon and checked the chamber personally in the last few secounds, or it's currently in a state of complete or partial disassembly, a gun is always loaded.

Firearms Safety 101: Keep your booger-hook off the bang-stick, damnit!

Diane Feinstein does not need silly "safety", especially not on the floor of the Senate.

...

Are you serious?

[Alien Space Bats]

Time for me to swoop in and nitpick the Hell out of everybody again.

---

On the Relationship Between Urban Crime Rates and Firearms Regulation

.... Chicago strict gun laws largest crime rate in history Known fact ...

In 2011 Chicago wasn't even in the top ten when it comes to firearm homicides. New Orleans and Detroit both had much higher murder rates than did Chicago.

Another thing to keep in mind about the Windy City: Illinois has a screwy system for regulating firearms. It's essentially done on a county-by-county basis, which means you don't even have to leave the State to circumvent whatever laws Chicago has in place. Throw in the ability to buy from private sellers at gun shows who — as evidenced by certain attitudes exemplified in this thread — see it as their God-given right to sell to anyone without regard for anything, and things just get ridiculous. California, FWIW, has a similar problem.

What Illinois needs to do is to step up and write a set of Statewide regulations. The problem, of course, is that the various different parts of Illinois can't really agree on what those common Statewide regulations ought to be.

---

On Private Sales

Various people (whom I will not name here to protect the guilty) have offered the argument that, as private citizens, they have the right to sell their stuff to anyone without restriction, and that if someone were to buy a gun from them illegally, that wouldn't be their fault — no, it would be the fault of the "criminal". Put directly, that argument is horseshit.

If I sell or give cigarettes or alcohol to a minor, I'm committing a crime. It doesn't matter if I know that person is a minor or not: It's still a crime. I'm supposed to check first, and if I forget — or stubbornly refuse to do so because "It's none of my business" — then that's on both of us, not them alone. Likewise, if I sell or give alcohol to a person who is already inebriated and they go out and get in a wreck, I am legally liable for the damage they cause, including any deaths or injuries that might result. I can't hide behind their irresponsibility; I can't say, "Well, it's on them to watch their drinking". No, it's on me: In any trade transaction between two or more people, all parties involved must be aware of the legality of the transaction, and all are responsible for its consequences. Nor can I evade responsibility by refusing to undertake basic due diligence (eg., checking indentification) and then attempting to hide behind my own self-inflicted ignorance.

This is a very general principle and applies to a wide variety of situations, from selling a drunk person alcohol to selling senior citizens junk bonds. It ought to apply to firearm sales as well, and that fact that we've deliberately written a loophole for private sales (and we should really stop calling it the "gun show loophole" and start calling it the "private sale loophole", because that's really what it is) is a sign of just how screwed up our thinking has become on this subject.

I'm sure certain self-styled "rugged individualists" won't like this. Well, too fucking bad. Go live on the Moon if you can't handle the responsibility of living in a civilized society.

Oh, and if the criminal is out on the street trying to buy guns, the incompetence lies with the judicial and law enforcement system, not the gun owner selling his personal property in good faith.

You do realize that a person who was once convicted of a violent crime, sent to prison, having served his full sentence and been released, may still be legally prohibited from owning a firearm until he or she is able to gain legal clearance to do so (usually only after having lived without a further offense for long enough to demonstrate reformed character, right)?

<pause>

For the purposes of this argument thread, you should read "criminal" as "person with a record of past criminal activity who has since been released"; yes, I understand that those terms are not really synonyms. But — just for the sake of argument — humor us, O.K.?

---

On Mental Health Checks

Or just include all current mental health records into the existing background check system.

Sure, and violate the Hell out of HIPAA.

That, and — once the records are inevitably leaked into the private sector — make millions of people diagnosed with depression unemployable for the rest of their lives.

Look, I appreciate the problem of trying to keep firearms out of the hands of those who suffer from any mental illness that would make them a danger to themselves and/or others. But the problem of maintaining the privacy of mental health records is equally important, and the potential harm that could be done by treating them like an open book vastly outwieghs the potential harm that's done each year by crazy people with guns. Killing sprees attributable to mental health problems are a small subset of all violent incidents involving firearms, whereas perhaps as many as a quarter to half of the National population has something in their medical record that might scare off an employer from offering them a job.

Savings scores — or even hundreds — of innocent lives may seem a goal worthy of any price; but if that price is a black mark that ruins the lives and potential careers of millions — or even "mere" hundreds of thousands — of people who, for example, have been treated for depression once or twice in their lives (and, given employers' fear of liability, that's really all that it would take to blackball a person from employment forever), it's a price I'm not prepared to pay.

---

On Crime Rates, Apples, and Oranges

The Libertarian article said that the UK has a lower murder rate 'than the USA as a whole' but how can you explain 4 states that have lower murder rates than the UK? It seems banning guns does not drop the murder rate to 0 like liberals would have us believe.

And it would seem that conservatives don't understand statistics, contrary to what they would have us believe.

<eyeroll>

I mean, really, folks. This is Statistics 101:

• Comparing unlike things is not proper practice: Thus when looking at Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, and the U.K., it should occur to you at some point that, as Sesame Street reminds us, "One of these things is not like the others."
  
  
• Cherry picking data is bad: You want to compare New England to the U.K., that's one thing. You want to compare the three Northeastern States with the lowest homicide rates (we'll leave Hawaii out of it for the moment) with the U.K., that's another. Why should we only compare Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire with the U.K., and not throw in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine as well?
  
  After all, this...
  
  

  State or Country	Murder Rate per 100,000
  New Hampshire	1.3
  Rhode Island	1.3
  Vermont	1.3
  United Kingdom	1.3

  
  Looks considerably different from this...
  
  

  State or Country	Murder Rate per 100,000
  Connecticut	3.6
  Maine	2.0
  Massachusetts	2.8
  New Hampshire	1.3
  Rhode Island	1.3
  Vermont	1.3
  New England (Total)	2.6
  United Kingdom	1.3

  
  ... See how including all the data changes things?
  
  Besides, this isn't even close to an argument against (or for) gun control. What about Louisiana, with its 2011 homicide rate of 11.2 per 100,000, or Mississippi, with its 2011 homicide rate of 8.0 per 100,000, or New Mexico with its 2011 homicide rate of 7.5 per 100,000? Why are we comparing New England with the U.K., instead of the Midwest, or the Mountain States, or the South? When you cherry pick data like this, you get results that are essentially worthless.
  
  
• Cross-temporal comparisons should be avoided if at all possible. Going back to the table above, why are we comparing U.S. homicide rates in 2011 with U.K. homicide rates from 2008? Again, using a (proper) apples-to-apples comparison, our table should look like this:
  
  

  State or Country	2008 Murder Rate per 100,000
  Connecticut	3.5
  Maine	2.4
  Massachusetts	2.6
  New Hampshire	1.0
  Rhode Island	2.8
  Vermont	2.7
  New England (Total)	2.7
  United Kingdom	1.3

  
  Or, better still, we could use a more recent year, like 2009:
  
  

  State or Country	2009 Murder Rate per 100,000
  Connecticut	3.0
  Maine	2.0
  Massachusetts	2.6
  New Hampshire	0.8
  Rhode Island	3.0
  Vermont	1.3
  New England (Total)	2.5
  United Kingdom	1.2

  
  Of course, doing this points out something else that's fundamental about these comparisons: While the U.K., being a nation of millions, is likely to have a consistent murder rate over time due to the fact that larger populations exhibit less variance, small States like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island are likely to have much greater variation over time because of the inverse of the same effect: Look at how Vermont's murder rate bounces from 2.7 in 2008 to 1.3 the following year. You might look at this and think, "Wow, what did they do in 2009 that worked so well?!?!!!!"
  
  And then, if you actually thought about it for a minute and ran the numbers, you'd find that the answer was, "They had only 8 murders instead of 17".
  
  <facepalm>
  
  That's the thing about comparing tiny U.S. States with a nation of millions: A small random difference in the number of domestic disputes can move one of these States three or four notches up or down in the standings.

So, yeah: Learn how statistics work before you try to use them to butress your argument. Otherwise, you'll just end up looking like an ass to those of us who actually understand how they work.

---

On the Qualifications of Legislators to Govern

Would you put a well-known Creationist in charge of a committee on Science?

<looks at Lamar Smith [Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology] and twitches>

A Creationist? Maybe not. But how about a climate change denier?

---

On Abusing Straw Men in Public

What would you do if you heard a man break your windown in the kitchen? You are in your bedroom? The police live 15 minutes drive from your home (assuming they will rush out). Can you hide for 15 minutes while you wait for them? The man broke in at night knowing somebody was probably home. He might want to rape you. The liberal would say call the police, hide, let the man rape you once he finds you (which is fine because he is a minority and came from a broken home), and then the man runs away out the back door when he hears sirens. Maybe he gets caught but you still live with the memory of rape and liberals cheer because no gun was used.

Yes, you're onto us, FR: We liberals love it when you get raped in your home by minorities. I read the papers and cheer every time a white homeowner gets raped, because that's just one more blow struck in vengeance for the lash. "Take that, Miss Suzie! Bet you wish your great-great-grandpappy hadn't been slaver scum NOW, don't you, girl! FUCK YEAH!!!"

Seriously, dude: That's just flat-out asinine. After a scree like that, who in the fuck can ever take you halfway seriously again?!?

Besides, if you're that worried about getting attacked, why the Hell don't you go totus porcus and build a panic room? Or do you posit that robbers will respond to such an "escalation" by bringing fire axes, sledge hammers, and cuttings saws to a simple burglary?

---

I've got more comments; this is just a start.

[Greed and Death]

Or the gun is not loaded, and even if she does shoot someone, it would be a member of the US Senate, so no big deal.

A drum magazine has been loaded.

Any time a magazine has been loaded (or actually any time at all), you keep your finger away from the trigger and the safety, unless you're planning to shoot.

given the blood libel rhetoric of the gun control camp she might be planning to shoot us for demanding our rights.

[Iseran]

It seems banning guns does not drop the murder rate to 0 like liberals would have us believe.

Literally nobody has ever claimed that, or anything like it.

i've seen my fair share of dim-witted leftists who believe such nonsense.


also, has anyone who criticized my source from "libertarianhome" even taken the time to read the article and notice that the US states with lower murder rates than the UK (with the exception being Hawaii, a low-population state with little ethnic tension and low rates of youth rebellion compared to others) have fairly lax firearm and self-defense laws?


@ alien space bats: claiming that the way you doctored your statistics via the use of cherry-picked information and selective nitpicking makes you a genius who can understand "the esoteric discipline of statistical analysis" is a good way to prove that you are nothing more than a typical leftist; an elitist, dishonest, arrogant and manipulative cretin who makes up new pseudo-facts to create an illusion of superiority while using thinly-veiled ad hominems in an attempt to discredit those with whom he disagrees.

[Nua Corda]

Literally nobody has ever claimed that, or anything like it.

i've seen my fair share of dim-witted leftists who believe such nonsense.


also, has anyone who criticized my source from "libertarianhome" even taken the time to read the article and notice that the US states with lower murder rates than the UK (with the exception being Hawaii, a low-population state with little ethnic tension and low rates of youth rebellion compared to others) have fairly lax firearm and self-defense laws?

Probably they didn't, because Libertarianism is rather, well, vehement in it's self-promotion, and sources promoting it are usually biased as hell and often just plain liars. Statistics are only relevant if they come from nonpartisan sources.

[Iseran]

Probably they didn't, because Libertarianism is rather, well, vehement in it's self-promotion, and sources promoting it are usually biased as hell and often just plain liars. Statistics are only relevant if they come from nonpartisan sources.

that's a fine example of hypocrisy.

you claim that libertarians are liars while conveniently forgetting to mention that virtually all of those who disagree with libertarianism (as well as with conservatism for that matter) are either liberals, liberal-socialists, or communists; people who adhere to ideologies founded on lies and manipulation.

[Frisivisia]

Probably they didn't, because Libertarianism is rather, well, vehement in it's self-promotion, and sources promoting it are usually biased as hell and often just plain liars. Statistics are only relevant if they come from nonpartisan sources.

that's a fine example of hypocrisy.

you claim that libertarians are liars while conveniently forgetting to mention that virtually all of those who disagree with libertarianism (as well as with conservatism for that matter) are either liberals, liberal-socialists, or communists; people who adhere to ideologies founded on lies and manipulation.

lolwut.

[Chernoslavia]

Aw. They took away my Draco AK-47.

Why would you want an AK without the stock?

Because putting a stock on something considered a handgun without registering the firearm as an SBR is a serious federal offence. Dont wanna spend 10 yrs in prison for that.

[Nua Corda]

Probably they didn't, because Libertarianism is rather, well, vehement in it's self-promotion, and sources promoting it are usually biased as hell and often just plain liars. Statistics are only relevant if they come from nonpartisan sources.

that's a fine example of hypocrisy.

you claim that libertarians are liars while conveniently forgetting to mention that virtually all of those who disagree with libertarianism (as well as with conservatism for that matter) are either liberals, liberal-socialists, or communists; people who adhere to ideologies founded on lies and manipulation.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Iseran]

lolwut.

1. libertarians support the individuals rights and do not interfere with nature, they allow the world to shape itself.

2. conservatives support the individuals rights but impose restrictions to maintain order and stability, they often practice some form of strict, formally institutionalized hierarchy to mitigate the risks of collapse and restrict the formation of "informal collectives" (i.e. youth subcultures)

3. liberals and other collectivists violate the individuals rights in order to maintain their "herd" and often practice some form of strict, informally institutionalized social elitism to passively oppress individuals and thus restrict expressions of individuality.

it is apparent to anyone with a functioning mind that each ideology's stance on self-defense is based on it's fundamental philosophy (individualist-anarchism for libertarianism, imperialism for conservatism and eugenicist-collectivism (neo-tribalism) for liberalism).

[Dyakovo]

I don't see the harm in illegalizing assault weapons. A pistol may be a good defense weapon. A bushmaster is like using a minefield to defend against a few wolves.

I fail to see what's wrong with using an assault weapon for home defense.

Especially considering how broad a category it is under Feinstein's proposal...

[Gibberish America]

I hate having Feinstein as my senator for this very reason.

So vote her out.

Sadly, not enough Californians are pissed off enough to do so. Then again, she's been in office since before I was born and it seems that the people in my state don't want her to leave quite yet.

[Nua Corda]

lolwut.

1. libertarians support the individuals rights and do not interfere with nature, they allow the world to shape itself. claim to support individual rights and allow the world to shape itsself as an excuse/justification for individual greed/selfishness/lazyness/lack of empathy.

2. conservatives support the individuals rights but impose restrictions to maintain order and stability, they often practice some form of strict, formally institutionalized hierarchy to mitigate the risks of collapse and restrict the formation of "informal collectives" (i.e. youth subcultures) support the rights of white, male, landowning individuals who make more than 250,000 a year, trick everyone else into supporting them by claiming to support individual rights and feeding people an economic pipe dream.

3. liberals and other collectivists violate the individuals rights in order to maintain their "herd" and often practice some form of strict, informally institutionalized social elitism to passively oppress individuals and thus restrict expressions of individuality. are far to broad a group to easily define, but generally support social freedoms and economic equalities, as well as a generally compassionate approach to humanity.

4. Collectivists are a whole 'nother kettle of fish


it is apparent attractive to anyone with a functioning mind poorly developed empathy and large amount of personal greed to belive that each ideology's stance on self-defense is based on it's fundamental philosophy some random bullcrap I just made up to support my slowly sinking arguement (individualist-anarchism for libertarianism, imperialism for conservatism and eugenicist-collectivism (neo-tribalism) for liberalism).

Fix'd for ya.

[Gibberish America]

Okay, went and looked it up. From what I'm seeing, it looks like that particular case was about blanket ban on handguns and some stuff about registering paperwork on guns. Doesn't seem to say anything that contradicts what I said :/ But please explain?

Made preventing access to handguns unconstitutional. You wanted to know how banning assault weapons could be considered unconstitutional. Same deal.

Also, this is an assault weapon;



(It's also for sale in my storefront)

This is not;



(and is not)

Looks cool

[Nua Corda]

Made preventing access to handguns unconstitutional. You wanted to know how banning assault weapons could be considered unconstitutional. Same deal.

Also, this is an assault weapon;



(It's also for sale in my storefront)

This is not;



(and is not)

Looks cool

All it takes is Adobe Flash and a little practice.

[Kouralia]

1. libertarians support the individuals rights and do not interfere with nature, they allow the world to shape itself. claim to support individual rights and allow the world to shape itsself as an excuse/justification for individual greed/selfishness/lazyness/lack of empathy.

2. conservatives support the individuals rights but impose restrictions to maintain order and stability, they often practice some form of strict, formally institutionalized hierarchy to mitigate the risks of collapse and restrict the formation of "informal collectives" (i.e. youth subcultures) support the rights of white, male, landowning individuals who make more than 250,000 a year, trick everyone else into supporting them by claiming to support individual rights and feeding people an economic pipe dream.

3. liberals and other collectivists violate the individuals rights in order to maintain their "herd" and often practice some form of strict, informally institutionalized social elitism to passively oppress individuals and thus restrict expressions of individuality. are far to broad a group to easily define, but generally support social freedoms and economic equalities, as well as a generally compassionate approach to humanity.

4. Collectivists are a whole 'nother kettle of fish


it is apparent attractive to anyone with a functioning mind poorly developed empathy and large amount of personal greed to belive that each ideology's stance on self-defense is based on it's fundamental philosophy some random bullcrap I just made up to support my slowly sinking arguement (individualist-anarchism for libertarianism, imperialism for conservatism and eugenicist-collectivism (neo-tribalism) for liberalism).

Fix'd for ya.

I don't know much about politics, but and therefore I have no idea what's going on in this thread now.

I'll just add my unresearched views on what the US should have here, and leave it at that. I have no idea what Eugenicist-collectivism is (collecting babies that people don't want?) or neo-tribalism ("Me big chief gazzer, me smash fucking pig! How mo'fo.") is...

Basically, you get a list of things, these are the things which aren't needed in a fire-arm for anything other than illegal purposes. You know the things: armour piercing ammunition, barrels under 'x' length for rounds of 'y' size. The things that are designed to kill, not to defend someone. There is no real argument beyond 'constitution' for having some sub-compact automatic pistol firing armour piercing rounds. Unless you're planning on going up against someone wearing body armour (and look who thst's likely to be). These, you impose really strict limitations on.

Then, you set up a series of certificates. Shotgun, pistol, rifle, restricted categories (e.g. integrally suppressed rifles) etc. From there you make people apply centrally to get these certificates, and the government dept responsible can check the mental health records or whatever to see if they think you're okay with getting it.

Once someone's gotten it, they can buy a fire-arm. To purchase it they must cite the code from their certificate alongside other data, so they can be corroborated as legally able to buy it. Then, with that, they can buy it: if they can pass a test. Pretty simple, really: give them a few days with the manual of the weapon, then require them to prove they can use it by completing a civilian-version WHT. If they're unable to do that, then really they shouldn't own it. The final stage would be to have annual (or some other interval) checks to ensure that both they can still use the weapon correctly, and that they are stored safely. Think of it as getting a notice in the post to say 'on Saturday the 15th of March, in a month's time, an *x* agent will visit your house between the hours of X and Y to check your fire-arms are stored safely and that you know how to use them. If you cannot make this appointment, then please reschedule, though be aware it must be completed by the 'x'th of 'x'.'. Then, on the 'x'th of x, the agent turns up, has a chat, inspects your safe, gives you an WHT in a randomly selected 'x' of your total armoury then leaves.

I as a inferior, pinko, liberal, freedom-hatin', Euro-commie... Sorry, Superior, tea-drinking, colony-founding, world-ruling, wave-sailing, azure-from raising, never-to-tyrant-falling, envied... Sorry, normal British person can't see anything wrong with this. It's like an MoT check on, not your guns, but your ability to use them. If you know how to use them and store them legally then you can't really complain. Someone will turn up for at-most an hour each year-or-so and have a chat with you. If you don't know how to use them or don't store them legally then obviously remedial steps should be taken, such as mandatory classes (i.e. be given a small leaflet on 'How to pass a WHT on the AK-74M' or whatever you have) or a court order to procure a gun safe or have your fire-arms confiscated until you have procured a gun safe.

If you complain in the case of you being in the right, and unaffected - why? If you complain in the case of the latter - who gives a shit? You're incapable of loading/unloading your weapon safely, or cannot store it safely. Not that you must do it - you just are unable to do it when mandated to demonstrate an ability to do so by law.

---

That's my two cents, anyone who's not a inferior, pinko, liberal, freedom-hatin', Euro-commie... Sorry, Superior, tea-drinking, colony-founding, world-ruling, wave-sailing, azure-from raising, never-to-tyrant-falling, envied... Sorry, British person care to comment on it?

[Iseran]

Fix'd for ya. I immaturely vandalized your points in an attempt to further propagate the lies spewed by the mainstream left so that really stupid and/or brainwashed people might begin using strawman arguments against you.

see, two can play that little game.

[Nua Corda]

Fix'd for ya.

I don't know much about politics, but and therefore I have no idea what's going on in this thread now.

I'll just add my unresearched views on what the US should have here, and leave it at that. I have no idea what Eugenicist-collectivism is (collecting babies that people don't want?) or neo-tribalism ("Me big chief gazzer, me smash fucking pig! How mo'fo.") is...

Basically, you get a list of things, these are the things which aren't needed in a fire-arm for anything other than illegal purposes. You know the things: armour piercing ammunition, barrels under 'x' length for rounds of 'y' size. The things that are designed to kill, not to defend someone. There is no real argument beyond 'constitution' for having some sub-compact automatic pistol firing armour piercing rounds. Unless you're planning on going up against someone wearing body armour (and look who thst's likely to be). These, you impose really strict limitations on.

Then, you set up a series of certificates. Shotgun, pistol, rifle, restricted categories (e.g. integrally suppressed rifles) etc. From there you make people apply centrally to get these certificates, and the government dept responsible can check the mental health records or whatever to see if they think you're okay with getting it.

Once someone's gotten it, they can buy a fire-arm. To purchase it they must cite the code from their certificate alongside other data, so they can be corroborated as legally able to buy it. Then, with that, they can buy it: if they can pass a test. Pretty simple, really: give them a few days with the manual of the weapon, then require them to prove they can use it by completing a civilian-version WHT. If they're unable to do that, then really they shouldn't own it. The final stage would be to have annual (or some other interval) checks to ensure that both they can still use the weapon correctly, and that they are stored safely. Think of it as getting a notice in the post to say 'on Saturday the 15th of March, in a month's time, an *x* agent will visit your house between the hours of X and Y to check your fire-arms are stored safely and that you know how to use them. If you cannot make this appointment, then please reschedule, though be aware it must be completed by the 'x'th of 'x'.'. Then, on the 'x'th of x, the agent turns up, has a chat, inspects your safe, gives you an WHT in a randomly selected 'x' of your total armoury then leaves.

I as a inferior, pinko, liberal, freedom-hatin', Euro-commie... Sorry, Superior, tea-drinking, colony-founding, world-ruling, wave-sailing, azure-from raising, never-to-tyrant-falling, envied... Sorry, normal British person can't see anything wrong with this. It's like an MoT check on, not your guns, but your ability to use them. If you know how to use them and store them legally then you can't really complain. Someone will turn up for at-most an hour each year-or-so and have a chat with you. If you don't know how to use them or don't store them legally then obviously remedial steps should be taken, such as mandatory classes (i.e. be given a small leaflet on 'How to pass a WHT on the AK-74M' or whatever you have) or a court order to procure a gun safe or have your fire-arms confiscated until you have procured a gun safe.

If you complain in the case of you being in the right, and unaffected - why? If you complain in the case of the latter - who gives a shit? You're incapable of loading/unloading your weapon safely, or cannot store it safely. Not that you must do it - you just are unable to do it when mandated to demonstrate an ability to do so by law.

---

That's my two cents, anyone who's not a inferior, pinko, liberal, freedom-hatin', Euro-commie... Sorry, Superior, tea-drinking, colony-founding, world-ruling, wave-sailing, azure-from raising, never-to-tyrant-falling, envied... Sorry, British person care to comment on it?

Sounds very reasonable to me.

Fix'd for ya. I immaturely vandalized your points in an attempt to further propagate the lies spewed by the mainstream left so that really stupid and/or brainwashed people might begin using strawman arguments against you

see, two can play that little game.

Man, I don't even need to argue when you just keep proving my points... Thanks bro, saved me some time there.