Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Reelya]

Im pretty much going to have to disagree with all of that.

Guns are less dangerous than cars. And while there are good reasons to subject them to more scrutiny and regulation than a typical object, all that goes pretty damn far beyond the pale.

I am all for mandatory registration, just like cars, I am all for mandatory proficiency tests, just like cars. But you don't have to register interstate travel 3 days in advance or report an unplanned trip to the pizza palace in case you got the munchies.

I can't really agree with that line of reason. It's like saying asbestos is less toxic than radium, so we shouldn't regulate asbestos. Also, the deadly intent of guns is their sole purpose, rather than an unwanted side-effect, like driving a car.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Americans have a right to own firearms for self-defense. Any such laws will be easily challenged and struck down.

Yes, but ignoring the fact that it's a bullshit decision, and was barely upheld in the state it was in. It established a clear route for banning handguns completely, even, which isn't even required for the sort of legislation I'd propose. The judgment was clear - the only thing preventing handguns from being banned is their current popularity as a home defense weapon, and there acceptable levels of regulation that can be applied to them based on their popularity. If they became less popular, it would be constitutional to ban them, and it's constitutional to pass legislation that could eventually make them less popular (for the purposes of home defense).

How about minimum age restrictions on gun ownership? Start it at 21, but do it as a regulation rather than the actual age codified in the bill. Later, jack up the minimum age to buy a gun in increments until it's 30 years old. Let's use the conservative distrust of young people to our advantage.

age discrimination. at 18 you are subject to compulsory military service. You damn well better be allowed to own and use a gun. And even that I find uncomfortable. 60 years ago, no one batted an eye at the concept of a 12 year old hunting squirrel or plinking bottles and cans with a .22.

Those people lived on farms. No connection to modern life for at least 98% of the population. Try hunting squirrels with a .22 in central park. There's really no connection to hand-gun ownership. You don't hunt squirrels with a Glock 9mm.

[Scelly9]

Yeah, age is crap. Out here in nowhereville, most twelve year olds know a hell of a lot more about guns than the average 25 year old I could yank off the street in a city.

[Reelya]

Yeah um i'm sure having guns out in nowheresville is really benefiting the population in some obscure way[/sarcasm]

They're clearly not needed for self-defense from other humans. Shooting runaway bulls maybe?

[Sirus]

Goddammit, I swore that I wouldn't get involved in another politics thread, but now I feel I have to.

Out in Nowheresville there are two primary uses for guns that don't apply to inner-city life: hunting and ACTUAL self-defense.
My step-grandfather hunts every year to supplement his yearly pension. By bagging a moose or two, he's got enough preserved meat to last several weeks throughout the year and still have enough to trade with other people in his rural community for fish, vegetables, and services.
Also, out in the wild there are wild animals. Wild animals can be dangerous, both to humans and domesticated animals. How do you expect a man to defend his herd of animals from things like mountain lions or wolves or whatever without a gun?

[Scelly9]

Yeah um i'm sure having guns out in nowheresville is really benefiting the population in some obscure way[/sarcasm]

Putting down animals. Hunting. Scaring away crows. Shooting stuff that eats all your cattle. Recreational shooting.

[fqllve]

I think the discussion was mainly about handguns though, as long guns aren't really used in crimes and handguns aren't really useful for any of those applications (except sport-shooting).

That said, 30 years old is a ridiculous restriction. If you aren't mature enough to own a handgun responsibly at 25 you probably won't ever be, and the same is likely pretty close to true at 21.

And requiring people to notify the police three days in advance before discharging a firearm is pretty draconian too. Not only would that be a needless hassle for the only people likely to be concerned about that law, but it would also be an unnecessary amount of paperwork for the police and the last thing we need for them is more bureaucracy.

[Sirus]

Plus, you know, you're not gonna know ahead of time if you get into some sort of emergency. Like

Scaring away crows. Shooting stuff that eats all your cattle.

[Flying Dice]

The one part of gun ownership that I don't have an issue with is just what was discussed above: long guns owned by people in rural areas who hunt for the table or need to protect livestock or themselves from predation. The primary issue is handguns, which have no purpose beyond shooting other human beings. You don't hunt with a pistol. You don't fend off predators with a pistol. You shoot other people, or threaten to do so. Military-style small arms are an issue, albeit one which is decidedly less important than handguns.

That aside, I have to agree that age restrictions are fairly meaningless once you get past the early-mid 20s. Someone who can't be trusted with a gun at 18 or 21 probably still can't be trusted with one at 25, 30, or 50.

[Sirus]

The primary issue is handguns, which have no purpose beyond shooting other human beings. You don't hunt with a pistol. You don't fend off predators with a pistol.

Admitiddely not the most unbiased source, but this disagrees. The short of it is that they can be used to hunt rabbits or small game for wilderness eating, especially if your long gun is designed to bring down much larger animals. Or they're "emergency weapons" if the hunter suddenly becomes the hunted.

Now, you could argue that a large number of them are clearly not designed for concealed carry or anything like that, but saying that handguns are ONLY for shooting people is clearly wrong.

[Flying Dice]

The primary issue is handguns, which have no purpose beyond shooting other human beings. You don't hunt with a pistol. You don't fend off predators with a pistol.

Admitiddely not the most unbiased source, but this disagrees. The short of it is that they can be used to hunt rabbits or small game for wilderness eating, especially if your long gun is designed to bring down much larger animals. Or they're "emergency weapons" if the hunter suddenly becomes the hunted.

Now, you could argue that a large number of them are clearly not designed for concealed carry or anything like that, but saying that handguns are ONLY for shooting people is clearly wrong.

Fine, fine. Handguns are generally not optimal weapons for doing anything but killing people. 

[Sirus]

Fine, fine. Now I'm gonna get out of here before I get embroiled in the next flame war

[Scelly9]

And recreational shooting. There's something about the kick of a handgun.

Of course, that's not to say that some tougher regulations wouldn't be a good idea. The age thing is still crap, though.

[Sirus]

And recreational shooting. There's something about the kick of a handgun.

This is my only experience with guns so far. Don't knock it until you try it, it's actually quite fun and can be done as safely as any sort of recreational activity.

Wait...dammit Me, stop posting in the politics thread!

[Grek]

Let's put things into context: Statistically, there where 31,328 gun deaths in the US as of 2010, and an estimated 270,000,000 guns owned by private citizens in America. Compare 32,885 deaths due to cars and an estimated 254,212,610 cars in America. This gives a rate of 116 deaths per million guns and 129 deaths per million cars. So guns are slightly less dangerous per gun than cars are per car. I won't get into the comparative utility of owning a car vs. owning a gun, but I will ask: If owning a gun is as dangerous as owning a car, shouldn't it have at least as many regulations involved?

[1] Karp, Aaron. 2007. ‘Completing the Count: Civilian firearms.’ Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City; Chapter 2 (Annexe 4), p. 67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 27 August.
[2] http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811630.pdf
[3] http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html

[Flying Dice]

There's also the minor fact that, for most Americans (especially those living in areas without/with insufficient public transit) a car is a necessity, in the same sense that for most Americans in the 1700s a gun was a necessity. You almost certainly do not need to own a gun to live a relatively normal life. A car? Not so much.

On another note, a more relevant statistic would be the rate of homicide-by-firearm as opposed to homicide-by-automobile.