Gun Control Laws

Making alcohol on your own is quite easy though. Try to make an assault rifle from scratch or to buy one on the black market, I dare you (this is rhetorical).

If some rednecks completely lose their **** over this it means they don' t deserve a gun to begin with. Let them slip, jail them, good riddance.
On the long run curbing the number of guns, their accessibility and their power wouldn' t decrease violence itself, but it without a doubt decrease the body-count : golf clubs and knifes aren' t exactly as deadly.

It' s a democracy, the wild wild west is long gone.

That' s weird, they don' t ask for cars that can reach 800 mph or ask to ban speed limits do they ? Shouldn' t they be allowed to put all the other drivers' lives at risk for the sake of their own selfish freedom ? They' ve indulged themselves with lax to no gun control for so long that they don' t even notice all their arguments against more control are just special pleading.

 

Alright, guys. Someone who very unfortunately isn't on this forum had some counterpoints to my earlier post. Since they can't post for themselves, I'll post their comments myself. If anybody would like to address the points, feel free to do so. I'll share my own thoughts after someone else does.

Isn't that because the forming of militias by non-state individuals have been effectively outlawed?

While the argument from militias is true, if there were a tyrannical government, a well-trained militia of civilians would be the /most effective/ tool against such a government, despite the odds still being very bad. Your argument comes close to implying that because the people cannot win either way, making their odds better is not something that should be a concern.

This makes little sense in context. It is logically impossible for a militia to protect a civilian party from the party that regulates its actions. Those regulations will by definition be in the interest of the party that the civilian needs to be protected from. Assuming that the amendment was meant to protect against a tyrannical bureaucracy, it is clearly counterproductive to put control of the militia into the hands of the same bureaucracy.

Regulated in that sentence has been deemed by many to mean 'well-trained' rather than subject to the laws of the government it seeks to protect against. This makes far more sense in the context of the sentence. (Merkel, p. 361. "Well-regulated meant well trained, rather than subject to rules and regulations.")

It is believed that the purpose of the amendment was to give the people the same arms that would be used to exact tyranny upon them. I agree that the founding fathers would wish for such weapons to never exist, just as they would wish for the atom bomb not to have been invented or used by their legacy. However, the govenment does have and will have superior weapons if gun control laws are passed, and that is exactly what this amendment wished to avoid. Consider that the American revolution happened only because the citizens were able to form a militia without a formal military and because they had arms that could match their enemy.

I think it can be assumed that the founding fathers wished to embed the rights that allowed them to gain freedom into the future, so that the same thing could be done again under similar circumstances. Anything else would make them hypocrites. Had they supported the idea of Britain regulating their arms and militias or had they been subjected to such regulations, they would still be under its rule.

The purpose of the amendment is made clear. Should another American revolution be deemed necessary by civilians, civilians should be allowed the tools to exact it.

If you are suggesting that all assault weapons—including those owned by the SWAT, military, and paramilitary forces—be removed from the US, then I am behind you.

If you are not, then you are facilitating an institution of martial law and a complete deconstruction of due process should the government ever feel threatened by civil unrest. Even the most altruistic reasons for taking away guns from civilians but not state officials will facilitate martial law.

The argument makes way more sense in favor of guns, though. Because guns are meant to be used to harm other people or threaten them, the fact that some people will still have them is far more threatening than the idea that some people will still have things like meth and cocaine. The danger to others is far greater than with drugs.

By comparison, the argument does not even make a point when applied to drug use. Drug use is a nonviolent and victimless crime. A group of people still getting a hold of drugs doesn't have much of a chance of harming the one who is complaining about it.

The argument is not as simple as "some people still getting them isn't fair". The argument stems from the notion that if someone else has a gun and the speaker does not, they are at a disadvantage and have have more reason to be afraid than before.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that drug X makes life worse for everyone around, then lowering the amount of people using the drug objectively increases the quality of life for those around the user. There is absolutely no way that the people whose lives were made worse could have their lives made better by having the drug allowed. Even if they chose to use the drug themselves, it would not help them because the quality of life would be lessened so much by those around that they would be better off with a somewhat effective ban. The only situation where being allowed the drug would benefit them would be if those around them were not allowed the drug, but they were.

The same logic does not apply to firearms, because owning a firearm significantly reduces the threat presented by someone else having the gun. There is only one way in which the two scenarios are similar.

The only scenario in which having a gun would increase your comparative quality of life would be if some people were not allowed guns but you were. You would be comparatively safer than everyone in that group.

On the opposite side, the only scenario in which not having a gun would increase the comparative quality of your life would be if no one else had access to them, either. Only then would you be made comparatively safer.

In most every gun control plan I have heard proposed for the US, one set of people will have any gun they want, but most sets of people will not. Thus, the quality of life for the set that is not allowed guns will go down, while the quality of life for those who are allowed them them will go up.

What if the crisis is civil unrest?

You either misunderstood his point or attempted to ridicule a straw man instead. If the latter, then I am disappointed.

Firstly, he said 'warding off'. You cannot ward someone off if they are not alive to be threatened. The threat of death alone, not actually shooting, is often enough to scare a thief out of your home or off of your land. He may not truly intend to kill. Aside from bluffing, he may intend to maim instead, or fire off a warning shot as such.

Secondly, if detaining someone who is threatening your property is not an option, you get faced with a choice of either using violent means to protect your property or dropping your bluff and letting the thief walk past you and take your stuff while you watch. Like it or not, you only get what you want in this world if you make sure it gets done.

Consider, for example, that if a thief resists arrest, he gets clubbed, and if he fights back against clubbing, he gets shot. The same logic applies. You only see the police as more humane because they are /able/ to arrest people without killing them, not because they are above killing them if forced to.

In fact, if there is a law on the books no matter the content and you manage to resist their 'humane' means of enforcing it, they will attempt to kill you over it. Even something as simple as refusing to present your driver's license can get you killed legally. Unless you want that practice changed, it doesn't make sense to say that you do not understand where those who would kill over property are coming from.

I personally am extremely possessive and barring a successful threat, I may kill in a fit of rage over certain possessions.

 

The implication here is that brute force would be your only option to stand your ground. I don' t recall Martin Luther King ever firing a gun to get what he wanted. Besides, it seems to me that information technology has become a far more effective weapon than guns nowadays. Just look how crucial a role the internet played in the Arab Spring, the citizens got their way in spite of their utterly outmatched weaponry.

As for what the second amendment does or does not say frankly I don' t really care : my US history/laws knowledge is quite rudimentary, and anyway you' d have to be psychic to know for sure what its writers would think of it now. I think it' d be best to cut the crap and just ask yourselves what kind of regulation would make more sense today.

Not sure if serious or just trolling. It makes sense to make cops' weaponry proportional to that of their citizens, which is why your cops are much more armed than French cops, and even more so than British or Japanese cops. However although I would very much like to live in a world where the military aren' t needed anymore I don' t think we' re quite there yet.

Well, personally I wasn' t thinking about baning guns altogether as much as baning the most ridiculously powerful ones and curbing the rest of them. I think I made my point abundantly and redundantly clear already across the numerous gun related threads. The reason I write an answer to this particular point is to say that if I were you, I' d freak out much more over the laws more or less recently passed in your country (those that copiously piss all over the legal burden of proof) than over curbing gun control.

If you went from 90 guns per 100 citizens (as in the US) down to to 30 (as in France) then you could still own a gun if you really want one and the odds for you to face a gun someday would have been reduced by two thirds. Last time I checked France looked a lot safer than the US.
Besides, facing a gun pretty much freezes you on the spot and forbids you to retrieve yours, unless you happen to have it on you. Not that using a gun in self defense never happens, but still, it' s much rarer than you make it sound.

Hmm, that would be a tough one for me to answer, there' s just too much cultural differences between our countries. Cops are not allowed to Jack Bauer your ass and shoot all wily-nilly here, and we don' t have death penalty. I' ll just post this and say that' s the kind of news that weirds the shit out of me :

 

too lazy to read everyone else's posts so I'm just going to state my own opinion.

I believe we should have stricter gun control laws. If we take them away completely, people (old white men) will lose their **** and the government will probably never decide to get rid of guns.
But we definitely need stricter gun control laws, because seriously, I know people say stuff like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." and while that's true, the easy access to guns makes it much easier for people to kill people.
We've had way too many shootings and we haven't done a damn thing and that's ridiculous.

 

Having grown up with a father who likes guns and is very much in favor of loose gun laws I have to say There should be a middle ground on gun control laws because banning all guns won't solve anything and seeing how if citizens are unable to defend themselves they are very likely to be trampled underfoot by those who do including their government and seeing how the US has been making laws and decisions recently that haven't been made in the public interest like the NDAA which has been resigned into law WITH THE PROVISION OF DETAINING US CITIZENS INTACT, I don't exactly trust them NOT to abuse their power.

 

Alright--this is what I think--if they got rid of the guns--how would people protect themselves when they're in danger? The government should explain that part a little bit more...

 

Ever heard of running, karate, knives, blunt weapons, knuckles, teeth, nails, grab his balls, alarms, tasers, pepper sprays, cell phones, Gandhi, Martin Luther King ? I don' t own any gun but I don' t feel defenseless.

 

I was just thinking about this - and explosives. Guns basically fire objects at very high speeds, and explosive blow crap up. That, in itself, is a very very interesting thing for some, if not most people, (well a high majority of boys I know anyways). Now, that I don't think it's bad. if you're in a safe environment, and nobody is going to get harmed, or anything, go ahead, blow crap up, fire them for fun. Thinking about it, I really want to do that now, but that's neither here nor there.

My point is, guns are a major source of recreation , and because some idiots do bad things, doesn't mean the people who use that sort of stuff for entertainment and clean fun should be getting their fun taken away. I should add now I'm from a rural Minnesota, and boys here, do that sort of stuff. (A lot of people here have guns, and there are collectors, and such, and I hardly hear about guns. There's only been one murder in this town - ever, and that was with a knife. I'm sorta anti-social, so I would not say violent or misuse of things never happen because they probably do (people are stupid. but people are not nearly as stupid as people make people out to be), but they at most, minor.

In that, I think any gun control should be more aimed at urban and not rural areas. Just going to put that out there. I think we handle our guns and things better than Urban Areas (Since there you always hear of people being shot in the cities, but never around here. I can't give specific statistics or information because I'm not that informed about violence in urban areas).

But even with the recent shooting, asides from more through background checks, I don't see what else we can do. And even with background checks, it might prevent me, (With Bipolar and Aspergers) from getting a gun, and I certainly, when I'm upset, do not become violent and I most certainly would not go after somebody with a gun because I don't roll like that. So it would have to be much more selective and deep for it to keep it from those who would abuse it, but to let people who would be able to handle it have it.

Personally, i feel like other things should be tackled before we tackle gun laws. That's just me though.

 

If your idea of a recreational gun is a semi-automatic weapon with a magazine capable of carrying 30 bullets, then you need a different type of hobby. I don't think any sensible American wants to ban all guns (key word: sensible), but the idea that you have the right to a sub-par military assault rifle for fun is ludicrous. There's no problem with hunting equipment or handguns for self-protection. If you're a collector, then I don't see any problem with even having an assault rifle, assuming that it's rigged so it cannot be used or at least so there's no ammo available for it. However, an ak-47 is not a fun toy; it's a weapon for murder.
Btw, meth is also a major source of recreation and, even if that's something one uses on oneself and not others, I doubt we should make that legal.

If you can't give specific information, you shouldn't make the claim. However, your general gist isn't far off the mark. But you're not considering population: urban areas have higher rates of almost anything because they have so much more people. Though, rural areas are more likely to have hunting weapons like shotguns whereas the assault weapons that we're talking about here are more likely to be found in urban areas anyway. Regardless, a gun control law would have more effect in urban areas, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't apply to rural areas, too. You're fine with your neighbor, teacher, and any other Billy Joe being able to take out a whole group of people with little effort because having a gun can be "fun?" Once again, ban on assault weapons/regulation on guns/ =/= banning all guns, but if you're still against that, I think you need new a hobby.

I don't think you know what "more thorough" means if you're suggesting a more "selective and deep" background check as an alternative. Regardless, I will say that any mental irregularity should not automatically prohibit anybody from getting a gun, but it should still be a red-flag. Consultation with psychiatrist, checking mental history to see if there's any incidents, stuff of the sort, should be done in case of such a red flag. However, someone who isn't emotionally stable shouldn't be given a gun on their word (Growing up with a mother who had bipolar disorder, paranoia, and depression, but was never violent through one of her crises, I still wouldn't say she was stable enough to have access to a firearm).

Do you mean there are issues more important than -but completely unrelated to- gun control that we should spend our time on instead of on gun control? Or do you mean that there are issues related to gun control that we must address before address gun control in order to make future gun legislation more effective?

 

Maybe I'll fully reply later. We'll see. It's late =w=. It's also late and I'm sorry if I'm a terrible debater. orz.

Well, I didn't make a claim per-say, so much as an opinion. I never claimed to be an expert on anything. it's just how I feel about it, and just because I'm not well versed as you in the matter, doesn't mean I shouuln't be allowed to talk.

And guns aren't my hobby. I've never owned, or handled a gun in my life. In fact, the last time I actually physically saw a gun that wasn't on a cop, I was probably around 9 years old. (because I live in a hole, basically)

I'm sorry but the point about guns being "fun", I just am going to say, you obviously don't live here. So many kids in my class love to talk about guns, and do gun stuff. Sure, they may be idiots, but they're definitely not stupid enough to go around shooting people with it. The boys I know love to talk about really weird crap, and do weird crap like that. (You should definitely listen in on a few classes of ours. It's hilarious.) Guns, and stuff, are just a way of life here. As I said, almost everybody has guns. How many people get shot or injured here? none. I literally do not know else to reply to you, since you obviously don't' live here, and know what the people around here are like with guns, and that stuff.

As I said, I've never handled a gun in my life, so i couldn't honestly tell you one gun from another.

Well, I meant the economy, and the war, and certain people still don't' have rights. I'm saying I feel that our attention would be better going to more pressing matters. The Shooting was sad , and tragic, but what exactly are we supposed to do about it? edit: I didn't see that meth comment until now, but I am done debating with you. I have lost any respect I had for you. Sorry.

 

In Switzerland they keep track of who bought which guns (or was given one in the army), and cops confiscate them all and red flag you as soon as you' re caught acting violently. Throw in a bar fight and you' re done. Apparently it works, they have very few gun victims considering their high guns per capita. On the plus side, it doesn' t look like Minority Report' s precrime.

Wut ? His point was that just because something is fun doesn' t mean it should be legal. He just used meth as an example to illustrate that point, he wasn' t comparing guns to meth if that' s how you read it.