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

[mainiac]

Yeah gun safety should totally be voluntary.  It's just like how car safety and hazardous chemical safety is voluntary.  We all know that it's an infringement on liberty to insist that people act like adults and be responsible with their toys.

[scriver]

About Europe's pinko-hippie-communist gun hating laws: In Sweden, there are three legal reasons to get guns: Hunting, sport (includes just shooting for fun, by the way, but only at ranges), and collection. You can own just about any kind of gun as long ad you have the right kind of license. There's no country in the whole world, not even the most leftist parts, where guns are under a blanket ban. That will never happen in the US either, so that fear is entirely unfounded, and pretending that that is what people are saying when they talk about restrictions is derailing the argument.

As for America's gun problems. There is, to me, two points where the US differs from Europe (even in the gun-happiest places, like here in Scandinavia): First of all, the sheer numbers of guns you produce. Not the high ownership rates in themselves. The size and power of the industry, and the amounts of guns out there. Secondly, the attitude concerning them. In Europe, or at least up here, guns are thought of and treated as tools. Dangerous tools, sure, but just as nobody (you know, generally speaking) gets an axe, shovel or a kitchen knife to use at other people, nobody who get guns does so with the intention of shooting other humans. This is in stark contrast to the US, where hurting others seem to be one of the main arguments for gun-ownership. Yes, I am talking about the "guns for self defence" mindset. It's just an alien way of thinking. I'm not in the position to say if this is related to the problems, but to me, that kind of approach really stands out. Even if it seems like a fairly neutral concept when limited to itself, I have to wonder if it's not part of normalising an idea of "I'm going to use this on another person" down the road. And yeah, let's not get into the whole thing with guns becoming centrepieces of power fantasies, even if they are "defensive".

Edit: wow, 13 new posts. Writing during a game probably the best idea.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

@Redking
'Everyone' as in 'very few'. It is likely cheaper & easier to wear insulated clothing than a bulletproof vest, but the actual number of people who would forsake functionality for immunity to tazer shots would be relatively small.
And also: restrict/regulate purpose-built insulated clothing.


@Descan
Eh, beanbag shotguns pose two problems:
1. Useability. It may be treading a fine line to acknowledge it, but for some women (& small men) operating/handling a 12-gauge isn't so easy. Handguns have their use.
2. Impossible to tell what ammunition is loaded in there, & if tracking down guns is bad, tracking down lethal vs non-lethal ammo would be off the scale.
We could use a new weapon system, but the ability to repack the rounds would perpetuate issue #2, and the implementation would be hella expensive.

Yeah gun safety should totally be voluntary.  It's just like how car safety and hazardous chemical safety is voluntary.  We all know that it's an infringement on liberty to insist that people act like adults and be responsible with their toys.

If you're talking about the tazers, one wouldn't be able to get the toy without the class. It's 'optional' in the sense that taking the class & arming oneself isn't mandatory.
(like driving class)


@scriver
A blanket ban may not be a politically feasible plan, but that doesn't mean no one ever argues for it.
Just on this board, my impression is that Descan & 10ebbor10 wouldn't mind such a ban.

Yeaah, that kinda feeling is why just examining what's worked in other countries, out of context, isn't the best idea on any issue. Which is lame-o (but true).

[10ebbor10]

Just on this board, my impression is that Descan & 10ebbor10 wouldn't mind such a ban.

My posts on this topic.

Spoiler: Compilation (click to show/hide)

1) Europe is only half as big as the US, but we do have a higher population (500 million versus 300), and combined larger economy. Which I think was his argument. America has a massive rural area.
2) Indeed. Especially because we get an additional level of governance to distrust
3) They do vary country by country, but in general gun control in Europe is not that strict. I mean, what do you need a machine gun for anyway?
4) Indeed, there's a reason it's called Gun CONTROL, not GUN obiliteration.

Statement 4 is a statement directed against the notion that total Gun ban is even on the table, let alone being argued in favor of.

I'm willing to accept that automatic weaponry has no large impact in the overall number of weapon crimes.

Question still remains: Why do you need an automatic weapon. I can conceive no usefull/legal situation where you would need one.

Here you see me forgetting that apparently, people like shooting things for fun.  Worst case, you can interpret this as me arguing in favor of a blanket ban against automatic guns, or a ban against guns for recreation useage.

We have tazers for dealing with those situations.

And yeah, the mere presence of guns causes an increased amounts of deaths. (Israel, for example, halved suicide rates amongst conscripts by preventing conscripts from taking their guns home). They tend to escalate any crime they're part of.

Here you see me bringing up some arguments against the common notion that Guns equal safety. ((I'll bring up those stats soon. Forgot about it for a while))
Guns cause suicide
On the Israel thingy.

Kind of scant evidence to say that I'm arguing for a blanket ban on guns here, is it?

But anyway, to clarify my position. I firmly believe that lowering the amount of guns within society will bring down death rates, reduce crime or at the very least reduce it's severity. The most important thing to note here, and the logical leap you make, is that a blanket ban is not the way to do that. Such a blanket ban will only result in the creation of an illegal arms circuit, and make any attempt to control guns impossible. It's politically and economically infeasible.

A gun free society would be ideal, but is impossible.

Oh, I also added the first evidence I found on google.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Heh, when I went back to check, only saw the last two posts of yours, 'people don't need them' & 'their mere presence results in more death'.
My apologies for misrepresenting you sir. 

But, on 'show them stats', I'd be more interested in non-suicide deaths.



ALSO!
@scriver
I think there are a number of countries with absolute weapon bans- but they're usually less democratic no?

[RedKing]

@Redking
'Everyone' as in 'very few'. It is likely cheaper & easier to wear insulated clothing than a bulletproof vest, but the actual number of people who would forsake functionality for immunity to tazer shots would be relatively small.
And also: restrict/regulate purpose-built insulated clothing.

So.....you're in favor of restricting defenses, but not weapons. 

[Helgoland]

ebbor: Sure a gun-free society is possible - phase out production, and start buy-back & destruction programs. After a while, the only guns that are left will be in the hands of the military and the police, which would qualify as 'gun-free', I believe.
Not feasible, not necessarily desirable, but possible.

[10ebbor10]

Guns cause suicide
On the Israel thingy.

There you have them.

And since you wanted stats about relationships between guns and crime:

Link

ebbor: Sure a gun-free society is possible - phase out production, and start buy-back & destruction programs. After a while, the only guns that are left will be in the hands of the military and the police, which would qualify as 'gun-free', I believe.
Not feasible, not necessarily desirable, but possible.

Only if taken as a global or multinational system. Otherwise, smuggling will result in illegal sales, which will result in other crimes.

Edit: Question. Apparently you need, as I think is logical to take classes to own a tazer. Do you need to do the same for light handguns?

[GrizzlyAdamz]

@redking
Yep.
Defenses against non-lethal weaponry just escalates everything to lethal, and who would need such protection? It serves no other purpose, and those who may be in harm's way due to their occupation would be using a full kev vest anyway, (which are regulated as well).
The same measures (or greater) would be reasonable to enact for taser-proofed clothing.

@10ebbor
Depends on the state, as always. I'd support gun/taser safety classes taught alongside driving courses in HS, so young people can pick it up before they come of legal age to own whatever their family already has.

[Frumple]

Edit: Question. Apparently you need, as I think is logical to take classes to own a tazer. Do you need to do the same for light handguns?

In the states? Well, it depends on the state. But Florida? No. No gun license, no requirements for training, no nothing (Beyond a background check. Sometimes.) to purchase and own. Not even much of an age restriction, iirc (16+ to own, 18+ to purchase? Something like that. It might be even younger for ownership.). You have to attend and pass a course to get a concealed carry permit around here, but the course in question is (or can be, anyway -- it may vary by area) a goddamn farce that might as well not exist -- the bigger barrier there is processing fees and whatnot.

[Helgoland]

ebbor: Sure a gun-free society is possible - phase out production, and start buy-back & destruction programs. After a while, the only guns that are left will be in the hands of the military and the police, which would qualify as 'gun-free', I believe.
Not feasible, not necessarily desirable, but possible.

Add step zero, conquer world, then. That may result in the destruction of some weapons as well.

GA: Alongside driver's ed? What about people who don't want a driver's license? What about a straight-up gun license? (As I suggested earlier, btw.)

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Driver's ed is usually a half-semester course anyway, (along with health/sex ed), so the same can be true of firearm safety.
Devil-details time.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So, basically we want something to ensure people who use guns know what they're doing yes? And we also want to keep them out of the hands of criminals & crazy people.
But, we also want to avoiding infringing on the right given by the 2nd amendment.

Now, a gun license can pose a problem- if it's required to purchase/own a firearm, it's making the statement that 'keeping arms is a priviledge, not a right'. Kinda gets into deep shit there.

So, we'll want to split hairs between keeping/bearing & using.
Have the license for the ability to 'use' a firearm,
have background checks or (with a lot of funding), interviews to purchase it.

Now, how do we allow ownership/possession without free use?
Well, much stricter controls on ammo is an option.

Or we could go with some kind of locking-mechanism. Keep in mind, we want to weed out the criminals & the crazy people with the background checks &, (if we could get the funding), interviews.
So the locking mechanism doesn't have to be particularly robust.
Personally, I'd prefer a physical trigger lock, or removing a key part of the firing mechanism, but nowadays they're rolling out electronic locks that are bound to wrist-bracelets. Those make me weary though, (damn electronics).

So if you can show you're not unhinged & don't have a history of knocking over convenience stores, you can purchase & own firearms to your heart's content.
If you want to use the firearm at the range, go hunting, or want the ability to use the weapon for self-defense, you've gotta get classes on how & when to use it.
Simply, all guns sold have one of those locking mechanisms, & once you have a 'use' license you can take it back in & get it unlocked.

With enough grandfathering-in & a robust commitment to youth-education & licensure, this sounds like a good compromise for everyone.

(btw, I'm slowly reading that article ebbor, I'm not ignoring it, (though I don't guarantee I'll post about it afterwards))

[Helgoland]

GA, I don't give a flying fuck about the second amendment - as far as I'm concerned, it's a relic from another time. All I care about is sensible gun legislation. And splitting hairs, making distinctions between possession and use, doesn't help with that.
You'll be 'infringing' (according to your definition) in any case; why not make that infringement clear, effective, and limited?

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Once you break it, there's no assurance there will be limits.
And you've gotta care about it if you want to make a fair compromise. And a compromise is (very probably) the only way to get that sensible gun legislation.

[Helgoland]

We don't have to care about the finer points of Shia theology to strike a deal with Iran either, do we? Sensible gun legislation means gun legislation that will be well-accepted. Tell me, who couldn't live with a gun license system?

(And if you care about breaking it, leave, let's say, low-calibre hunting rifles unrestricted. That way, the appearances are kept up, but nothing terribad happens.)