gun control

[Horsem4n]

so, since there is a lot of tension that still hasn't been released in the other thread, i will take the liberty of making the thread several other people mentioned we should make.

 

for my first post i will talk about an expanded background check system. i do not like background checks and wait times and stuff of the like, practically, it saves no one.

but background checks. currently, at gun shows, about an average of 50 to 75% of the people selling guns there are FFL licensed dealers and the rest are private sellers. the licensed dealers still have to perform background checks even at gun shows, the private dealers only need to make sure you're over 18. now, regardless, most criminals get their guns elsewhere. that statistic of 40% of criminals getting their guns from gun shows is bogus. while there is no way to be 100% positive, criminals almost never buy guns themselves at gun shows.

most criminals buy guns through straw purchasing (using a clean friend or family member) and corrupt licensed dealers (who most of the time just report them missing) and then there is the small percentage that just steal them. 

 

so what i'm saying is, gun shows and background checks aren't the problem. the systems in place now are already intrusive enough and doesn't work well, what makes you think a bigger system will work better?

 

how is universal background checks going to work anyway? its just going to be business as usual for corrupt dealers and straw purchasers. the only way to make it work is to have a complete gun registry and i just don't trust government with a list like that. it didn't turn out well for any other country that has one.

 

anyway, im libertarian. i believe in human rights and liberty. lets see how this goes...

[Danke]

Living in a society is tacit acceptance of control. I sincerely doubt all the libertarians out there are posting on the internet with a computer they assembled themselves via an internet they built and maintain on their own nickel. Braying about that is patently ridiculous. Would you prefer home schooled Dr.s who've learned on their own with no oversight or would you get on a plane with a pilot who was unlicensed but felt it was his right to fly an airliner?

 

The reality is that by living in first world country and taking advantage of what that has to offer while complaining about how bad your life is and the unfair intrusion of the government that runs the country seems somewhat hypocritical and certainly entitled.

 

On to gun control. You need balance the safety of society vs. the risk to the individual. You may to choose to complain about a background check but what does is it entail? Surely that's part of the process of preventing criminals access.

 

Saying that since criminals can still get guns they should be abolished is false dilemma, That same kind of thinking comes from the anti's when they want to remove all guns "to save one life".

 

What gun control needs is solid leadership to bypass the the current "you're with us or you're against us" mentality that's resulted in two stalemated camps. Unfortunately there is a real critical character flaw flooding today's society; people will only honour state, regulatory, contract, family, fiduciary, equitable, and criminal obligations if they feel like it, & typically, they don’t. Until that is addressed no progress will be made.

 

[hwagan]

Personally, I feel it should go something along these lines;

 

Background checks for anybody buying a gun from anywhere - That just seems sensible to me, people need a license to drive a car and the like. And I'm not saying 3 weeks of the FBI going through your garbage, just a criminal record, mental health and school records - Some bloke in an office who doesn't know you is going to be looking for any signs you're batshit loony, which I don't personally see as too intrusive. If your records exist, bureaucrats read them - Why would one more hurt so much? Generally, just the obvious stuff you'd look for. Buying explosives in quantity is pretty heavily regulated I imagine, and a gun can do a lot more damage than a bomb in the right hands.

 

Types of gun available - I don't really agree with the need for low capacity mags - I know once or twice during massacres the shooter's undoing has been a fumbled reload, but I doubt it's an enormous factor - If I can change an AR mag in 3 seconds while I'm being careful of the delicate plastic feed lips I'm sure someone with 15 minutes practice can get close to that with a real one. At the same time, what's available shout be reasonably sensible - Much as I'd love an M240, I wouldn't like to see the general population being able to purchase an LMG for laughs. When it comes to full autos, have government owned/run machine gun ranges - Give ex serviceman employment, use the profits to fund background checks etc.

 

Concealed carry - If anybody wants a concealed carry license, they go on an accredited, thorough, intensive firearms handling course - Run by trained professionals, ideally combat veterans, and covering drawing and firing, general gun handling, firing from cover, and especially ID'ing targets in the dark and in stressful situations. Essentially, if somebody wants to carry a concealed firearm, fine - But they'll have a decent level of training on it's proper usage and deployment.

 

Retention of ownership - Once somebody buys a gun, as far as I can tell, they can sell it to a local hoodlum cash in hand, and the police won't find out until that gun is used in a crime - Feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong. But would it be so hard to put a QR code or other unique marker on all firearms, and every 6 months, you use an app on a smartphone to scan the code and show you're still in possession of the firearm.

 

 

I'm not a politician or anything, i have no major understanding of governments, but I'd be happy enough with the above if it'd mean I could own guns and feel a little safer about everybody else that did.

[Horsem4n]

owning license to drive a car compared to owning a license to own a gun is one thing that's very different in this country. our constitution guarantees the right to own sufficient self protection in the form of any and all arms. in this country, our founding fathers decided it was best that we should be free to arm ourselves with any and every technology our own government uses. now, being that i do not think i will literally have to fight my own country i can forgo being able to own fighter jets and hellfire missiles, not that id ever be able to afford them. but any and all small arms can be very useful for some people. for texas ranchers, they have to deal with mexican drug cartels. id like to see them mess with the farmer with a minigun.

 

now, i do not think that, just because my loopy neighbor can go out and buy an RPD that we'll see crazy people start shooting up schools and such with autos. if we can get gun free zones abolished they won't go there. they won't be tempted to go to a school because they know now that there may be a teacher or resource officer with a gun thats trained to use it. in the last century, the average deaths in mass shootings where there are no people carrying, around 14 people died. when there was a person present with a gun the average deaths in a mass shooting is around 2 or 3 people.

and then there is the average criminal and they already have access to any and all automatic firearms and RPGs, so what the hells the point? most of them use small revolvers and blunt objects anyway.

 

i do not believe concealed carry is lawful. its dishonest and not part of our constitution. but i don't believe open carry should be limited in any way as long as you're not pointing it at people and being an *albatross*. however, yes, to get a license to conceal carry, you should take classes. 

 

retention of ownership harkens back to the gun registry. thats no good. my country has no such registry and your government has already usd yours to take most of them away, same with Danke's, or at least its getting there.

 

and Danke, i do not believe i would like to give up freedoms for a system that does not work.

 

also, im not on welfare and i pay taxes. i have a right to complain.

 

i pretty much simply believe that the government should never initiate force. they should only step in if you violate someone else's liberty or a contract.

[cazboab]

The second amendment when updated to modern language would say something like "Governments need to train and arm troops to ensure the security of the country, therefore private individuals should be similarly armed if they so chose, in order to both prevent abuse of those troops by the government, and to ensure security when they are unavailable."

 

Its interesting to me that one of the most common arguments is that a musket of the 1780s and 90s took 20 od seconds to reload, and no semi automatic or repeating firearm should be allowed because of that. The first amendment makes no mention of the fact radio, tv or the internet had not been invented, yet its hard to find anyone who'll argue that they're not covered under "the press".(incidentally it also grants the right to complain weather or not you claim welfare or pay taxes)

 

It also really annoys me how little the people pushing the legislation use the "common sense" they espouse for limiting magazines to whatever arbitrary number of rounds they feel like, from Joe Biden telling his wife to fire blindly through the door to the uneducated opinions of Diana DeGette who thinks magazines can only be used once, to the outright hypocrisy of concealed carry permit holder Dianne "Mr and Mrs America turn in your guns" Feinstein .

[hwagan]

owning license to drive a car compared to owning a license to own a gun is one thing that's very different in this country. our constitution guarantees the right to own sufficient self protection in the form of any and all arms. in this country, our founding fathers decided it was best that we should be free to arm ourselves with any and every technology our own government uses. now, being that i do not think i will literally have to fight my own country i can forgo being able to own fighter jets and hellfire missiles, not that id ever be able to afford them. but any and all small arms can be very useful for some people. for texas ranchers, they have to deal with mexican drug cartels. id like to see them mess with the farmer with a minigun.

 

now, i do not think that, just because my loopy neighbor can go out and buy an RPD that we'll see crazy people start shooting up schools and such with autos. if we can get gun free zones abolished they won't go there. they won't be tempted to go to a school because they know now that there may be a teacher or resource officer with a gun thats trained to use it. in the last century, the average deaths in mass shootings where there are no people carrying, around 14 people died. when there was a person present with a gun the average deaths in a mass shooting is around 2 or 3 people.

and then there is the average criminal and they already have access to any and all automatic firearms and RPGs, so what the hells the point? most of them use small revolvers and blunt objects anyway.

 

i do not believe concealed carry is lawful. its dishonest and not part of our constitution. but i don't believe open carry should be limited in any way as long as you're not pointing it at people and being an *albatross*. however, yes, to get a license to conceal carry, you should take classes. 

 

retention of ownership harkens back to the gun registry. thats no good. my country has no such registry and your government has already usd yours to take most of them away, same with Danke's, or at least its getting there.

 

and Danke, i do not believe i would like to give up freedoms for a system that does not work.

 

also, im not on welfare and i pay taxes. i have a right to complain.

 

i pretty much simply believe that the government should never initiate force. they should only step in if you violate someone else's liberty or a contract.

 

 

That's fair enough - Understandably cars aren't included in the constitution; I'm also fully in agreement with my interpretation of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment - I just think there's the whole 'You can't predict technology' thing. Still - Were I a Texan farmer (I actually wish I was) dealing with Cartels, I wouldn't even want a minigun - Sure it's a psychological thing, but I'd rather have a suppressed AR with an NV device and a big pile of mags - Going on the fact cartels are very well armed, I wouldn't want to be in a fixed position standing behind an insane muzzle flash. Plus, a minigun could conceivably be used to shoot down aircraft, sink shipping and all sorts of madness. I'm not saying people would go and do that, but that's a hell of a lot of power to put in one man's hands - The ability to wipe a 747 out of the sky with a press of a button seems a bit much, as much as I'd love to own a minigun. 

 

When it comes to the ability to carry in places like cinemas and the like, I'm all for that as well - I just feel that anybody who wants to act in that capacity (I.E, carrying a gun in case it's needed instead of looking boss) and carry in public should be very well trained. I know if I was in a darkened cinema and a guy started shooting, I couldn't guarantee my ability to accurately identify the shooter and take him out. On second thoughts, generally accredited training for anyone who wants to carry, concealed or openly, wouldn't be a bad idea at all. Say a training course was $500 - You'd immediately ruled out a lot of casual 'Meh, feel like owning a gun' types and people would think a lot more seriously about owning a gun.

 

As for the registry idea, it may be a tad impractical anyway with the amount of guns in circulation in the US - I guess that isn't an issue that's easily addressed. I can't help but think a way to track guns a bit better couldn't hurt.

 

Essentially, I generally agree with you - I don't feel the government should have power over me, and I feel if I pay taxes, they should help when I need it and leave me alone when I'm not doing anything that harms anyone else. 

 

In an ideal world, we'd all be able to do whatever the hell we felt like, as long as it didn't negatively impact anyone else - But human nature is the problem here, you'll always get crazies, and the ability to stop them buying easy to use lethal weapons should be a thing. 

 

Hopefully that makes some kind of sense. 

[Danke]

I'm old enough to remember the 70's when the BATF was hassling people far and wide. The NRA sat down and made a plan to pull their teeth, and they were wildly successful.

 

The pendulum has now swung far the other way; depending on who gets involved and what kind of support they garner they could push back the clock.

 

This is an American problem that needs to be solved by Americans. People putting their heads in the sand refusing to discuss or saying that since the system isn't working they're leaving it won't help.

 

I am not a fan of letting antis call the tune. I would much rather have someone write legislation or regulation based on fact and not fear.

 

Unless the USA can put more popular figures on the pro side I think there's a real risk that the death of a 1000 cuts will begin.

[Powerslave]

Hwagan I agree with your sentiment that I should be able to do whatever I want unless I trespass upon others. By extension so should everybody else.

 

Because I am a logical and sensible person I consider myself safe to own a gun. However being logical also means I realise that people out there aren't always as safe (or logical) as I am. Therefore logically I can comfortably give up my right to own a gun.

 

Also its important to state that we are all equal. As in every single human. So why should you be allowed to have a gun but you wouldn't feel comfortable if the funny bloke round the corner had one. Who decides who's crazy? Surely you're not suggesting the government keep a database on them?

 

Training does not actually remove the possibility of incompetence anyway. Lest we forget the innocent Brazilian man sitting on the tube (subway) minding his own business when armed officers suddenly jump on the train and shoot him in the head. People say hindsight is a wonderful thing, then they fail to learn anything from their position. Then when it goes wrong again they say 'hindsight is a wonderful thing' and do it again.

 

In the same way as getting rid of crime would involve getting rid of humans, getting rid of gun crime necessarily involves getting rid of guns. Seems to work quite well in the UK really. I've never been shot and neither has anyone I know. Our largest gun holding sector though (the police, not talking about mod right now) seems to kill quite a lot of people.

 

Anyway sorry if I'm ranting.

 

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[AceOfSkulls]

I think the past has shown that there are a lot of "normal" people who have been up standing "normal" people who own guns legally, even just sporting guns. Right up instill they flipped and gone on a rampage or shot up their families (just thinking of the UK here).

 

Simple fact is more people die in the US and UK yearly in family annihilation incidents, then mass shootings. Mass shootings are just a silly thing to use as evidence either way tbh and just warp the argument. Might aswell argue you should carry around a harpoon gun and some shark repelent incase you see someone attacked by a shark.

 

Gun massacres are not a failure in gun law, they're a failure in society. Guns make it easier to kill though.

 

Personally though if I lived in the US in a state that allowed it, I would own a home defence weapon. Simply because there are so many illegal guns floating around.

[Powerslave]

Yeah I'd definitely agree that the American society is mostly to blame. Its weird how they have become such a violent society when compared to places like Canada and Switzerland where gun ownership is also high.

 

Maybe it stems from moments in their history when their government said it was ok to hate certain members of their own society. Like black people, communists (hell in the fifties you could just be a sane liberal and still be outcast) and even japanese and German born American citizens during ww2.

 

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[amateurstuntman]

Might aswell argue you should carry around a harpoon gun and some shark repelent incase you see someone attacked by a shark.

 

Sharks are lovely creatures and I think they should be protected.

 

I have done some research into this and if you are worried about shark attack - know this:

Sharks will only ever attack you, when you are wet.

 

Top tip that.

 

 

 

As for the gun control issue, that's a tough one.  The only thing that will solve it is education, understanding and decency.

 

Good luck.

[cazboab]

Maybe it stems from moments in their history when their government said it was ok to hate certain members of their own society. Like black people, communists (hell in the fifties you could just be a sane liberal and still be outcast) and even japanese and German born American citizens during ww2.

So your argument that individuals should not be allowed arms is that the government can't be trusted? That's basically what I think the second amendment says as its reason for why they should be armed...

[Powerslave]

I think I'm saying that the US govt seems to like having their population scared of something.

 

Even if they couldn't be trusted the second amendment is irrelevant if that is the point of it. I'd love (but also hate) seeing an armed citizenry getting mown down by govt choppers, tanks, ships and nukes. I'm fairly sure (but may be wrong) that its illegal to own an armed chopper, drive a tank on a highway, fit your boat with cruise missiles or have your own nuclear silo.

 

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[AceOfSkulls]

Stuntman you haven't obviously seen the documentarys on the Sci-fi channel , giant sharks are know to attack subs, oil tankers even aeroplanes! God help you if there is a tidal river running through your city.

 

I don't think its history particularly. I'm more thinking that society has acted in such a way to make someone feel so far apart from it that they can commit such acts. Or been ill suffering somehow and had no help. By "society" i mean everything rather than just the goberment

[cazboab]

I think I'm saying that the US govt seems to like having their population scared of something.

 

Even if they couldn't be trusted the second amendment is irrelevant if that is the point of it. I'd love (but also hate) seeing an armed citizenry getting mown down by govt choppers, tanks, ships and nukes. I'm fairly sure (but may be wrong) that its illegal to own an armed chopper, drive a tank on a highway, fit your boat with cruise missiles or have your own nuclear silo.

 

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Indeed, but if you take anything to the extremes of the US government mowing its own citizenry down, almost nothing maintains its relevance, the most common example used is a seat belt at low-moderate speed (ie up to 50 or 60 ish mph say) wearing a seat belt is often the difference between broken bones and being ejected through the windscreen into the road, but if we take to to the extreme and say your car is hit at 100MPH head on by an HVG, a 2 inch wide nylon belt isn't much help.

 

As for owning tanks, that's legal in the US I think, though IIRC every shell would be considered a destructive device so you'd need to pay a $200 tax on each one. Even here I know its legal to own a tank, and some of the main guns on older tanks can be owned operational on just a shotgun certificate, though again, good luck with the shells... Armed aircraft and gunboats, I'll pass on completely since the only thing I can think of as to legality is having seen both privately owned on sons of guns...

[creepingfear]

The second amendment when updated to modern language would say something like "Governments need to train and arm troops to ensure the security of the country, therefore private individuals should be similarly armed if they so chose, in order to both prevent abuse of those troops by the government, and to ensure security when they are unavailable."

 

Its interesting to me that one of the most common arguments is that a musket of the 1780s and 90s took 20 od seconds to reload, and no semi automatic or repeating firearm should be allowed because of that. The first amendment makes no mention of the fact radio, tv or the internet had not been invented, yet its hard to find anyone who'll argue that they're not covered under "the press".(incidentally it also grants the right to complain weather or not you claim welfare or pay taxes)

 

It also really annoys me how little the people pushing the legislation use the "common sense" they espouse for limiting magazines to whatever arbitrary number of rounds they feel like, from Joe Biden telling his wife to fire blindly through the door to the uneducated opinions of Diana DeGette who thinks magazines can only be used once, to the outright hypocrisy of concealed carry permit holder Dianne "Mr and Mrs America turn in your guns" Feinstein .

 

This ^^^^^

 

Bang on the money. Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

Monarchy, Police, Standing Armies ect do not keep Governments in check. An appropriately armed citizenry is what keeps Governments in check. Anything else is pure *badger*s.

[creepingfear]

Lets not forget owning armoured vehicles is also legal over here minus the weaponry and/or a decommisioned main gun. On the point of the main gun, is it true that under UK Firearms Law the main gun is classed as a section 1 firearm as it can only fire one shot at a time and needs manually reloading for every shot? Or does it specifically fall under section 5 legislation? I can't seem to find anything to prove or disprove the theory.

[my_plague_666]

Monarchy, Police, Standing Armies ect do not keep Governments in check. An appropriately armed citizenry is what keeps Governments in check. Anything else is pure *badger*s.

 

i'm sorry, but how is the american citizenry keeping it's government 'in check'?

 

not going to get into this one, i've said my views in other threads. seems senseless to me to have such an efficient means of killing quite so widely available to joe public, especially when there's no real need for it. but y'know, that's just, like, my opinion man.

[Horsem4n]

its easy to think like that in your country where you have so many freedoms already taken away and you've grown up accepting that. we aren't doing enough to keep our government "in check" and they have already made over 6000 new laws in the wake of the sandy hook shooting. in my state and other states that have enacted senseless anti gun legislation, there are people taking the new laws to court to get them overturned.

nobody here really wants to have another civil war. but if we let our government take too many steps towards banning guns, they will also continue towards a socialist system. the reason we are doing so bad right now is that we are teetering between systems and its just not working and our government is spending too much money and taking more and more from its public. i want to return to a real capitalist republic, i believe that system works best. no income taxes lower taxes for the rest of the stuff. cutting whole government departments like education and the IRS, we just don't need them anymore. people will have more money to put in banks which will allow them to start lending more money and create new businesses. but no, my government wants to socialize health care and create new taxes that will force more people into the welfare system and create more government slaves in our hospitals.

i mean, it could work if they go all the way. but i don't want to live in a country where i'm at the mercy of my government. thats no way to live.

 

a semi auto rifle is no more deadly than a pistol at close range. if you are to ban one, theres no reason not to ban them all. and since you're not saving anyone, why ban them to begin with? in this country, they'll never get them all with over 350,000,000 in circulation.

[my_plague_666]

its easy to think like that in your country where you have so many freedoms already taken away and you've grown up accepting that. we aren't doing enough to keep our government "in check" and they have already made over 6000 new laws in the wake of the sandy hook shooting. in my state and other states that have enacted senseless anti gun legislation, there are people taking the new laws to court to get them overturned.

nobody here really wants to have another civil war. but if we let our government take too many steps towards banning guns, they will also continue towards a socialist system. the reason we are doing so bad right now is that we are teetering between systems and its just not working and our government is spending too much money and taking more and more from its public. i want to return to a real capitalist republic, i believe that system works best. no income taxes lower taxes for the rest of the stuff. cutting whole government departments like education and the IRS, we just don't need them anymore. people will have more money to put in banks which will allow them to start lending more money and create new businesses. but no, my government wants to socialize health care and create new taxes that will force more people into the welfare system and create more government slaves in our hospitals.

i mean, it could work if they go all the way. but i don't want to live in a country where i'm at the mercy of my government. thats no way to live.

 

a semi auto rifle is no more deadly than a pistol at close range. if you are to ban one, theres no reason not to ban them all. and since you're not saving anyone, why ban them to begin with? in this country, they'll never get them all with over 350,000,000 in circulation.

 

mate, even if i was allowed to own a gun i doubt i would. i simply have no need for it, and personally i dont think the majority of american citizens have any genuine need either. also, how are you not already 'at the mercy of your government'? you live under their rules, do you not? you really think the US government is your *badgeress*?

 

i do agree that banning semi auto rifles sounds pretty daft, personally i'd have said the compact and concealable nature of pistols would make them more of a concern than rifles. to be honest i don't think banning things is the answer, with the gun culture as strong as it is and the sheer number of guns in circulation it simply doesnt sound feasible. i do however think that there should be tighter control over who should and shouldn't be allowed a gun. of course then you come across the problem of people complaining about losing rights, whether these rights are useful and necessary or not.

 

but anyway, that's me done for this thread. these threads never accomplish anything and only ever end up going round in circles, same with anything regarding religion (i remember when religion threads on arnies were insta-locked for that very reason). 

[Horsem4n]

well, with the patriot act and other national defense bills, i am at the mercy of my government. they can detain me for as long as they want under the pretense that i am a terrorist. but other than that, my government has to go through a system of check and balances to convict me of any wrongdoing in order to take things away, jail or otherwise kill me. so the the most part, no, i am not at the mercy of my government. but i am at the mercy of stupid people and bureaucrats

[creepingfear]

There's no point in trying to argue with UK peeps as my follow countrymen have become too pathetic. Far too much victim mentality and reliance on the State to solve all problems and provide so called "protection". True protection is what the individual can provide for themselves as the individual is the first responder in any situation. The State is nothing more than a second responder to the aftermath.

[Horsem4n]

im just looking to have a general understanding of politics on this board involving the issue at hand.

[Powerslave]

It's funny that the term pathetic has become a slur. I'd much rather be pathetic than apathetic. I'm guessing you are saying you're apathetic then.

 

Let me tell you from first hand experience that apathy is a key symptom of depression. Which is not fun. Love your fellow man and never trespass upon him. That's all we need in terms of laws as that pretty much covers it all

 

American gun owners on the whole seem to be a pretty selfish bunch from what I hear their spokesmen say.

 

Horseman I too am fascinated to find out the politics of this as my views seem to run counter to what I thought airsofters would think.

 

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Harmless]

 i want to return to a real capitalist republic, i believe that system works best. no income taxes lower taxes for the rest of the stuff. cutting whole government departments like education and the IRS, we just don't need them anymore.

Awesome statement. Education is vastly overrated, real waste of money. You just don't need it if you're  poor. It's just tyrannical for governments to insist you educate your children. How dare they!

Seriously, have I missed a smiley face?