Print

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

[Sheb]

Fuck, gun use in crime then. I don't feel up for a semantic fight right now.

[Andir]

The possibility that you'll get caught while purchasing your gun.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0873649834/o/qid=958441463/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/103-4342302-3796628

Who needs to purchase a gun?

I suppose "gun regulation" includes banning machining tools and the ability to buy stock metals as well as censoring the plans.

[Sheb]

Again, it's not about making it impossible, it's about making it hard enough to most criminals don't bother. It's like airport security. It's still possible to blow an airliner. Does that mean we should stop any kind of searches/luggage checking in airports?

[Nadaka]

Again, it's not about making it impossible, it's about making it hard enough to most criminals don't bother. It's like airport security. It's still possible to blow an airliner. Does that mean we should stop any kind of searches/luggage checking in airports?

Not necessarily, but it does mean we should stop irradiating porno scans and enhanced penetration "pat downs". Gun control does not prevent crime at all, it only removes the most effective tool that a victim can use to prevent their abuse.

[Frumple]

Again, it's not about making it impossible, it's about making it hard enough to most criminals don't bother.

Except, in America's case, it's not about that, either. It's about making sure that the people who legally acquire guns are knowledgeable and capable enough for responsible gun use. Current practices are so loose (at least in a notable amount of states) that they're only nominally there if you don't already have a criminal record.

You're not going to get a law banning or heavily regulating gun usage through the states any time in the next several dozen years, period. Stronger regulations on licensing and selling/buying is at least possible, and would help cut down on accidental shootings.

[Nadaka]

Again, it's not about making it impossible, it's about making it hard enough to most criminals don't bother.

Except, in America's case, it's not about that, either. It's about making sure that the people who legally acquire guns are knowledgeable and capable enough for responsible gun use. Current practices are so loose (at least in a notable amount of states) that they're only nominally there if you don't already have a criminal record.

You're not going to get a law banning or heavily regulating gun usage through the states any time in the next several dozen years, period. Stronger regulations on licensing and selling/buying is at least possible, and would help cut down on accidental shootings.

That is something I can get behind, more education and training on firearm safety and use is a very good thing, even if it is mandatory.

[Andir]

So how are you supposed to allow sport shooting where anyone on the block can have a gun and not have an easy way to get access to a gun?  If a thief wants a gun, all they have to do is know who has one, break into their home and take it.  Now one has to debate how secure is secure.  If I lock my gun in a steal case with a cheap lock, it is secure?  Do I need to take my key with me at all times or can I hide it in the same room as the "safe" so that I can easily defend my home?  What if I'm sleeping and they just take my set of keys?  Do I need a gun safe?  Are there guidelines on how thick the metal is or how many numbers I need to unlock it?

If a criminal wants a gun, they aren't going to buy it, even today.  So the argument that making purchases harder is moot.  If all guns are banned, people will make them.  The instructions are out there, freely available in some cases.

[Sheb]

Except evidence is that they won't. Criminals are as lazy as you and me, they aren't going to go to great length to get guns if they don't need them. And they don't need them if most of their victims have no guns.

PS. And over here, in Belgium, guns have to be kept at the club.

[Andir]

Except evidence is that they won't. Criminals are as lazy as you and me, they aren't going to go to great length to get guns if they don't need them. And they don't need them if most of their victims have no guns.

But criminals can and do break into homes to steal possessions.  What if one of those possessions is a gun?  (My uncle had a collectible antique firearm and some other guns stolen from him during a break in.)

PS. And over here, in Belgium, guns have to be kept at the club.

What if I own 300 acres of land and have my own "range" that doubles as a corn field in the summer?

edit: Also, nobody seems to be touching the idea that someone can make their own gun.  It's like everyone ignores that people have and do make their own weapons.  Heck, prisoners make weapons out of the strangest things.  They don't even need machine tools or metal in most cases.

[Leafsnail]

The possibility that you'll get caught while purchasing your gun.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0873649834/o/qid=958441463/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/103-4342302-3796628

Who needs to purchase a gun?

I suppose "gun regulation" includes banning machining tools and the ability to buy stock metals as well as censoring the plans.

Except that the other points still apply, and what's more the police have evidence from all the "how to make guns at home" books you have lying around your house?  Heck, they see the crime, see that you've used a homemade gun as described in a book, look for people who've bought that book and bam, case closed.  Not to mention that homemade guns generally suck (it's not much good for threatening if people won't recognise it as a gun and it won't exactly be reliable).

Basically you seem to be saying "Your solution isn't 100% perfect, therefore it's worthless".  It's aggravating how often arguments like this come up when gun control is discussed.

What if I own 300 acres of land and have my own "range" that doubles as a corn field in the summer?

What if I kept making up contrived examples that won't be true in the majority of cases?

[Descan]

Probably need to get a permit allowing you to operate a gun range, which grants you (regulated) ability to own guns in secure, designated areas on your property.

Same as a shooting gallery that is run as a business, likely.

I don't really know, though. Just guessing.

[Sheb]

Which is why having guns at your home isn't such a good idea (Like what that guy wrote earlier about his family in South Africa.)

As for the corn range, well, things like that just don't happen in Belgium. :p We just don't have fields that big. I guess this would be one of the few legitimate cases that would be forbidden by Belgian-style regulation. I personally think the gain in gun crime rate (which is a thing, whatever Nadaka may say) are worth it, but even if you don't, there is plenty of room in the spectrum between Belgium and what's going on in the state. That room include harder tests before buying, banning assault weapons, no conceal carrying except for off-duty cops and the like, etc etc.
 

[Virex]

PS. And over here, in Belgium, guns have to be kept at the club.

What if I own 300 acres of land and have my own "range" that doubles as a corn field in the summer?

As far as I know, in Europe the government typically doesn't like people firing guns in places they don't know about. So you'd at least have to inform them you're using your land as a shooting range. Presumably you could get a permit to store your guns near the range then, but for that you'll have to look up the exact regulations.

edit: Also, nobody seems to be touching the idea that someone can make their own gun.  It's like everyone ignores that people have and do make their own weapons.  Heck, prisoners make weapons out of the strangest things.  They don't even need machine tools or metal in most cases.

Does it matter? A home-made gun is an unregistered fire arm and in countries with restricted gun laws those are illegal anyway. Ignoring that, how big is the effect of people making their own guns going to be? The justice system doesn't deal in absolutes, it can only reduce problems, not cut them entirely. [/quote]

[Andir]

The possibility that you'll get caught while purchasing your gun.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0873649834/o/qid=958441463/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/103-4342302-3796628

Who needs to purchase a gun?

I suppose "gun regulation" includes banning machining tools and the ability to buy stock metals as well as censoring the plans.

Except that the other points still apply, and what's more the police have evidence from all the "how to make guns at home" books you have lying around your house?  Heck, they see the crime, see that you've used a homemade gun as described in a book, look for people who've bought that book and bam, case closed.  Not to mention that homemade guns generally suck (it's not much good for threatening if people won't recognise it as a gun and it won't exactly be reliable).

Basically you seem to be saying "Your solution isn't 100% perfect, therefore it's worthless".  It's aggravating how often arguments like this come up when gun control is discussed.

Nope, I'm saying gun bans, regulation on purchasing, and everything else being discussed is pointless because a criminal can/will still acquire the tools they need to overpower in the crime they want to commit.  Who's to say the person kept the plans?  Maybe they were electronic and once they built the gun, they deleted the plans from disk,  Maybe they melted down the drive to make the gun then burnt the plans.  Dumb criminals are dumb criminals.  They leave trails, evidence, etc.  I don't see what you are arguing except that criminals can be dumb... they don't have to own a gun to be dumb.  If a criminal acts today, they'll be on camera... have witnesses... or have a long enough paper trail that it won't matter if they used a gun, so I don't see why the regulation will matter.

What if I own 300 acres of land and have my own "range" that doubles as a corn field in the summer?

What if I kept making up contrived examples that won't be true in the majority of cases?

So what you are saying is that someone with the land to properly exercise their hobby should be penalized for someone living in a dense population area?  Does this apply for all tools?  I mean, I don't need a baseball bat, but if I had the proper amount of land, shouldn't I be able to go out and hit the ball around?

Probably need to get a permit allowing you to operate a gun range, which grants you (regulated) ability to own guns in secure, designated areas on your property.

I just don't see the need.  If I own and properly handle weapons, why can't I own it without having to jump through hoops because someone, somewhere hundreds of miles away decided that tool was the best thing they had for a crime?

Which is why having guns at your home isn't such a good idea (Like what that guy wrote earlier about his family in South Africa.)

Meh, I still think of them as tools and don't agree that they need to be treated like an infectious disease.  There's a legitimate non-lethal use for them and forcing people to jump through hoops to participate in a hobby is over the top.  (Even though my Uncle didn't really attempt to lock up his guns, I see no real reason to outright ban the personal possession of them.)

As for the corn range, well, things like that just don't happen in Belgium. :p We just don't have fields that big. I guess this would be one of the few legitimate cases that would be forbidden by Belgian-style regulation. I personally think the gain in gun crime rate (which is a thing, whatever Nadaka may say) are worth it, but even if you don't, there is plenty of room in the spectrum between Belgium and what's going on in the state. That room include harder tests before buying, banning assault weapons, no conceal carrying except for off-duty cops and the like, etc etc.
 

That's why there's no such thing as one rule for all.  If I have the land and the tools, I should be able to act accordingly.  Also, I have a concealed carry permit.  I don't carry (I got it as a "statement") and I'm not a police officer (what gives an officer more of a right to carry than myself?  He went through law education and some simple gun classes that I can take myself?)

As far as I know, in Europe the government typically doesn't like people firing guns in places they don't know about. So you'd at least have to inform them you're using your land as a shooting range. Presumably you could get a permit to store your guns near the range then, but for that you'll have to look up the exact regulations.

I don't know myself, but that would kind of suck.  I enjoy going to my parents for a weekend and setting up targets if I want.  What I would not enjoy is having to clear it with the local sheriff.  I just don't see guns as that much of a threat that I'd have to clear it with the local sheriff... and if that was the case, I'd be voting for a new sheriff next election.  If my neighbors disagree, they can keep him in.  So far, we've had no problems.  In fact, some of my neighbors join us from time to time.

[Montague]

Which is why having guns at your home isn't such a good idea (Like what that guy wrote earlier about his family in South Africa.)

As for the corn range, well, things like that just don't happen in Belgium. :p We just don't have fields that big. I guess this would be one of the few legitimate cases that would be forbidden by Belgian-style regulation. I personally think the gain in gun crime rate are worth it, but even if you don't, there is plenty of room in the spectrum between Belgium and what's going on in the state. That room include harder tests before buying, banning assault weapons, no conceal carrying except for off-duty cops and the like, etc etc.
 

I don't understand your statement there.

The regulations you suggest in the bottom are pointless. Criminals don't apply for concealed carry permits, so making them impossible for a responsible citizen to obtain is basically disarming a victim. Or potentially creating one, rather. Banning assault weapons is of dubious value. Those types of weapons are simply not used in crimes, despite what you see in movies and video games. Gun manufacturers will find loop-holes around the restrictions anyways. The whole reason the Clinton Assault Weapons ban was allowed to sunset and die was because it accomplished nothing. There was no evidence it made anybody safer.

I'd back up the harder tests, better vetting and more serious instruction and training requirements for purchasing a firearm or applying for a concealed carry permit. Most deaths caused by firearms are self-inflicted or accidents. Ensuring that the people owning a firearm are responsible enough to do so is a valid consideration. Making silly laws further restricting the styles and types of firearms a responsible person can own is pointless.