Gun Control Proposals For The Usa

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Balbus, Nov 9, 2015.

  1. 6-eyed shaman

    6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    5,149
    That sucks. But must we assume nobody is responsible and allow the government to watch over all of us?
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. Heat

    Heat Smile, it's contagious! :) Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    9,814
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    Ironically we have had two youth related shootings here this week.

    I am not opposed to regulations regarding firearms and I do feel that there do need to be areas of accountability for owners. None of the proposals you have suggested are without merit as far as reasonable requirements for owing arms.

    My issue is with the overall view that it will eliminate illegal guns. It may make it more difficult for some to obtain one illegally but it will not stop trafficking as it is big money, just like other organized illegal activities. That heavier penalties are levied is not a deterrent to those who are involved in these things (look at drug cartels) they are only in play after the fact. In other words after the crime has been committed. That does not mean that they should not have stricter guidelines and penalties for breaking them but it is tempered with the reality that there will always be illegal firearms out there.

    The one advantage to an extended wait period for gun ownership is that it tends to probably eliminate spur of the moment (passion) purchasing and allows for a cooling off period on the part of the purchaser. I also feel that some firearms should not be readily be available to be owned without a special licence that also involves the reason the person wishes to own it (ie assault weapons).
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Meliai

    Meliai Banned

    Messages:
    25,868
    Likes Received:
    18,279
    I don't really see it like that I guess. I think a lot of the proposals brought up in the OP would more or less be common sense legislation, nothing too extreme.

    I don't want a nanny state but as a bit of a misanthrope I think the majority of people are stupid and irresponsible, which is fine I guess under most circumstances but when it comes to kids or criminals having easy access to guns I don't know why regulation to make it harder is a bad thing.

    I'm not trying to be a victim blamed either, but I would like to say as a woman I know I'm more likely to be raped by someone I know and trust - this still doesn't stop me from being cautious and not putting myself into stupid situations. I apply the same logic to gun ownership.
     
  4. Heat

    Heat Smile, it's contagious! :) Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    9,814
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    Thanks for the clarification. I do agree with you that there are certain firearms that should not be just available to anyone. There could be a grandfathering clause in any new laws and regulations on those for future purposes. Such as a special licence in order to own certain firearms, like assault weapons.

    I see this as two issues. One is responsible ownership and the other is illegal guns. The first is far easier to mandate and have clear definitions of legal responsibilities and hopefully the majority of citizens compliance on. The second is always going to be more of an issue of how to make it more punishable to be involved in as deterrents which historically with any mandate has not been successful. Think drug cartels, prohibition, human trafficking. Gun control laws will not stop illegal gun trafficking. It will probably drive the prices up though and also create a nice additional profit for the traffickers. That is not say that there should not be harsher sentences for those caught and found guilty. That should be a given.

    Trafficking is a larger problem than gun control is. The two while related are not interchangeable as far as eliminating or controlling them.
     
  5. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    105
    I know. I'm just being a dick. But guns are also used for sports like clay shooting, or target shooting. Many Olympic athletes in sports shooting don't use their guns to kill living animals or people, I'd be surprised if any of them did in fact. When I used to shoot competitively I didn't either. When we all go out camping, we shoot tin cans and beer cans. Very rarely are we shooting at anything alive, the thought doesn't cross our minds.

    Cars although transportation devices, they've also been used purposely to ram cars off the road and injure and kill other drivers and pedestrians.

    That's all I'm going on about. :D
     
    2 people like this.
  6. Beutsecks

    Beutsecks Large Rooster

    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    213
    I fail to see the point of asking a question you know the answer to already. People learn to be criminals, some become quite good at it, others get caught so much you wonder why they bother. I do think that criminals who shoot people have a fundamental flaw in the understanding of how brutal their actions are or the long term implications. Letting them know that they will lose their trigger finger might bring some of them into the realm of empathy before they let fly with their lead nightmare. However, I disagree with the idea of cutting off a thief's hand(s). That is excessive barbarism. A trigger finger to me is only moderate barbarism. People who shoot other people are barbarians. Barbarism may be the only way to reach them.

    Also, I am not against gun control. I just don't think it requires more taxpayer expenditures. I think ammunition manufacturers should foot the bill for serialized rounds and that they should be sold to someone who is fully identified. If I buy a box of .32 or .22 bullets, I should have my name associated with every single round.
     
  7. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    irminsul


    OH FUCKING HELL NOT THE CAR ARGUMENT AGAIN!

    I mean it’s so obviously flawed I’m really surprised any sane person would post it – the only explanation I can think of is that they have never actually been challenged so they have never ever had to think about it, because if they did they’d have to see its obvious flaws – wouldn’t they?

    Because in all the many, many gun threads I’ve been in over the many, many years I’ve been here no pro-gunners has ever been able to defend the car argument from criticism – NOT ONCE, EVER.

    (calm balbus, calm, go to your happy place, raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens….)

    OK to repeat – Again, here is just one counter argument I’ve posted in the past -

    In the UK automobile accident data is collected and correlated so that accident black spots can be highlighted and the reason for accidents happening discovered so action can be taken as needed (such as installing traffic lights or road signs, putting in new speed restrictions or traffic calming or simply increasing visibility). This is an ongoing operation due to changes in road use and changing demographics.

    I would hope you had something similar going on in the US?

    Many societies try to regulate drivers and driving and the type of regulation is often dependent on the number of drivers, the higher the number the more and tighter regulation is usually needed. The UK is a small island with a lot of cars.

    We test drivers ability through a testing and licensing scheme, backed up with a penalty point system for bad driving (get too many points and you loose your licence). Again these things are constantly under review to see if improvements to the testing or the regulation of licences can be made (I believe the last driving test update was in 2003).

    Also all cars are registered and their owners known and a driver must have insurance cover.

    On the other side car manufactures bring in new safely features as technology allows because cars can be sold on their safety (and I believe it reduces the insurance premiums) A new safety feature I’ve heard about is proximity braking systems that apply the brakes if the cars gets close to something even if the driver doesn’t. But a certain level of car safety is regulated for. New cars have to pass safety test before being allowed to be sold and existing cars have to pass a yearly MOT and that certificate has to be valid for the car to be allowed on the road. Then there are other things like safety belt laws and baby car seat regulations etc.

    Now guns are weapons sold for how unsafe they are, that is, how much harm they can do to the target or how accurately it can be hit.

    And that’s the thing guns are not cars.

    For example the data for gun crimes and accidents are already collected and correlated, but where areas of concern are highlighted many pro-gunners seem against any action being taken or argue for the removal of regulations and legislation already in place. The equivalent idea transposed to automobiles is that there shouldn’t be any tests of driving ability, street signing, traffic laws, breathalyser testing, etc.

    But let’s take the things that we have been using to try and reduce harm from having a lot of automobiles in a society and impose them on gun ownership?

    All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence and responsibility to get a gun licence and have a current licence.

    All guns would need to be registered and any theft or resale reported and logged.

    Insurance would be needed to be paid up and valid.

    Accidents or misuse (e.g. having a gun while intoxicated) could result in penalty points, increased insurance payments or loss of licence.

    All guns would be needed to be inspected once a year for the licence to be renewed.

    Now some people wouldn’t care about such rules but many pro-gunners I’ve talked to would think them an outrageous attack on their ‘rights’.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    6


    Are you actually reading what has been said?

    OK I’ll try and explain again in the simplest way I can –

    Here are the relevant proposals -

    [SIZE=11pt]Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure manner (eg safe or other secure locking system). People that didn’t have an approved system would not be allowed to own a gun [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and/or banned from owning a gun. [/SIZE]

    These proposed laws would be about trying to lessen the ability of criminals or the irresponsible from getting easy access to guns and since according to the FBI virtually all the guns in criminal hands were once purchased legally but then been sold, handed on or stolen. It would seem prudent to try and stop criminals stealing guns or the irresponsible from getting hold of them so easily.

    Is that understood? If so move on.

    SO the law would be – gun owners would have to secure their gun in a secure manner – do you understand that - once you do go to the next line.

    SO if someone has their gun stolen and has NOT shown due diligence in securing their weapon then they would have BROKEN THE LAW

    Can you understand that now, because I don’t know how I can make it any simpler to understand? (I’ve cleared it with a couple of 10 year olds and they get it).

    In your viewpoint - that the breaker of the law is the victim - you’d have to say the rapist is the victim in the crime not the woman who’s been attacked and that plainly silly to me – how about you?

    Now you can object to the proposed regulations but can you put up a rational and reasonable argument against them rather than just saying you don’t like them and claiming anyone that disagrees with you is on the side of rapists – because that is not rational or reasonable.


    Actually this thread was [naively it seems] aimed at those that are in favour of gun control to discuss what we think might help since clearly in the thread you allude to the pro-gunners had no rational or reasonable counter arguments against gun control regulations like those in the OP.

    I didn’t [naively it seems]believe they’d just start posted their flawed argument again here (I mean come on the fucking Car Argument, again).
     
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Rhad



    Your post reminds me of the theory I’ve often presented that I think in many ways underpins why people have a desire to own guns.

    My theory is that there is a general attitude among many people that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

    In the US this attitude has brought about a ‘punishment culture’ resulting in the largest prison population in the world per population who are imprisoned in one of the harshest prison systems in the developed world.

    And now to add to that you wish to add enforced amputation of body parts to me that is the kind of mindset that gets in the way of actually working toward solutions to their societies social and political problems.

    Number of prisoners per 100,000
    US – 707
    Canada : 106
    England and Wales -148
    France -102
    Germany -76
    Luxembourg - 112
    Switzerland – 84

    *



    So that we can then know who bought the bullets when we dig them out of the victim’s body?

    That doesn’t really help that much in lessening the easy access of guns to criminals and the irresponsible.

    I mean if the gun and bullets are stolen or if the person buying the gun and bullets decides to go on a killing spree how does knowing the bullets were bought by a particular person actually help?
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Heat



    If a pipe in a basement is broken and gushing out water flooding it, the first thing you do it try and lessen or stop that flow and only then do you set to the probably long and arduous work of draining the basement.
     
  11. Beutsecks

    Beutsecks Large Rooster

    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    213
    We also have a lot of assholes in the US who belong in a cage. I agree the prisons are a failed concept overall. They were originally called Penitentiaries because they were supposed to reform people. Now they are universities for the advancement of criminal knowledge. And the schools seems to be part of that process as well. There is most certainly a hideous core to the US judicial system to allow all of this to coalesce into such a profitable nightmare. It's pure tyranny for most. For those with money it's just a nasty shakedown as jail/prison are used to scare people into giving up their life's savings.

    On the issue of identifying ammunition to the buyer, it's just a way to plug a leak. There is no single solution to the problems we have with misused guns. But knowing who misused ammunition, could prevent crimes. Our cops are a reactionary force and will be until Pre-Crime comes to be! I also think rapists should be executed. No, it won't fix those who have been raped, but it stops the rapist from ever raping again.
     
  12. Heat

    Heat Smile, it's contagious! :) Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    9,814
    Likes Received:
    1,840
    No, through out this thread even those who feel that some weapons should not be readily available to all or that some controls need to possibly be in place regarding taking responsibility as owners, also feel there is a correlation being drawn between that and crime that is somehow going to be reduced by these measures. That this legislature is going to make criminals stop stealing or purchasing illegal guns. Change may slightly reduce the amount of guns but it will not change the mentality of those who would now or will in the future obtain or wish to obtain an illegal gun.

    That is why the discussion derails as it is not a one solution problem.

    It is not only one side of this issue who have a blind spot at times and are not willing to view the issues subjectively. Being presented as a way to reduce crime is what is flawed, not reasonable restrictions.





    Speaking of arguments that are flawed and have no more bearing than a car one.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    105
    Nah, I'll stick by the argument. Guns kill people. And so do cars. There's no flawed logic there, that's just a fact and if drivers undergo testing criteria to obtain a lisence, so do gun owners. I mean you need a permit don't you and to hand over your lisence for your gun to be registered? Same with a car, and like people with guns who may be on drugs, so are the many car drivers on the roads every day.

    You might be a homicidal maniac able to pick up a gun today and start shooting people, but you could also be a homocidal maniac and pick up a car today and start running over people too.
     
  14. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    rhad

    Ok well it seems to me that you are – how do I put it – inflicted with the mentality I mentioned before that to me seems to be a problem for many in US society -your reaction to the symptoms of social and economic problems seems to be based on the threat of violence (eg the execution of people and the enforced removal of body parts).

    Thing is that many countries seem to have better strategies for tackling rape than the US and those are not based on executing rapists. Many counties have lower gun related homicide rates but that is not due to chopping of peoples fingers.

    As I’ve said before the problem is that an attitude that seems to accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control is that it can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what is seen as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

    Here is an interesting article that exposes just how difficult it is to get a rape conviction in the US, if rapists were facing the death penalty it is likely to make a bad situation worse.

    [SIZE=11pt]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/11/rape-reporting-system-rigged-to-let-predators-go-free[/SIZE]
     
  15. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    [SIZE=11pt]Heat [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11pt]Can you back this up in any way? [/SIZE]

    From what I could find, in an admittedly short search, was that gun storage laws seem to go back to 1994 in Canada and that it would seem that between 1997 and 2008, around 97,000 firearms were reported missing or stolen in Canada which would be around 9,000 a year but just in 2012 nearly 200,000 guns were reported lost or stolen in the US.

    Of course that is just those that are reported but the difference even taking into account population differences is striking.

    And you could read this summery as to some general arguments.
    http://smartgunlaws.org/reporting-lost-or-stolen-firearms-policy-summary/

    [SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11pt]I don’t think people are suggesting it is a one solution problem; in fact I keep stressing the need for a holistic approach but gun control measures as presented in the OP would have their part to play. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11pt]Can you clarify? Can you back up your assertion? [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11pt]Again can you back this up in some way - in what way to you believe it flawed and why – and why do you think it has no more bearing than the rather silly car argument?[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]I’ll go through it to clarify - If a pipe in a basement is broken and gushing out water flooding it, the first thing you do it try and lessen or stop that flow and only then do you set to the probably long and arduous work of draining the basement[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]Now according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money (the gushing pipe).[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]It would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]The measures suggested in the OP are aimed to try and lessen those risks.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]Once that has been done (lessening the flow) it would then be easier to begin the admittedly long job of draining the society of illegally held guns. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]In the UK this was done not only by gun amnesties and retrieving guns from crime scenes but by also setting up task forces specifically with the job of seeking out illegal guns. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]It will not be easy and it will not be quick, but I don’t think many people that advocating gun control thinks it would be.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]Now you might disagree with this and that’s fine but have you any rational and reasonable argues to present in opposition? [/SIZE]
     
  16. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Irminsul



    So do ladders (47 deaths) baths (9) and lightening (1) – based on the UK statistics of accidental deaths 2010 – now in 2011 the number of gun related homicides in England and Wales was 39 so more people were killed by ladders than murdered with guns, but the thing is that the deaths due to ladders -as with virtually all those involving cars - were accidents not murder. And neither ladders nor cars are specifically designed to inflict death and injury - guns are.

    Your assertion that guns and anything else that causes death are exactly the same just doesn’t stand up to rational scrutiny.



    But that is not reflected in any data I can find – if your theory was correct it would be reflected in the data of countries that brought in stricter gun control and I can’t find anything that backs up what you imply. Can you back up what you say with a rational arguement based on empirical evidence of any kind?
     
  17. Pieceofmyheart

    Pieceofmyheart Grumpy old bitch HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    727
    [​IMG]
     
    3 people like this.
  18. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Actually this thread was aimed at those that are in favour of gun control to discuss what we think might help since clearly in the thread that is alluded to, the pro-gunners had no rational or reasonable counter arguments against gun control regulations like those in the OP.

    I didn’t believe they’d just start posting their flawed argument again here (I mean come on the fucking Car Argument, again).

    Cheers for letting me make that point again.

    [​IMG]
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Pieceofmyheart

    Pieceofmyheart Grumpy old bitch HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    727
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG]







    [​IMG]
     
    4 people like this.
  20. Beutsecks

    Beutsecks Large Rooster

    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    213
    I wonder if you realize just how off putting your use of words is. Inflicted with the mentality? I have no use for this kind of belittling, arrogant bullshit in a debate. So just go put a checkmark in the Win column on your little white board and move on. I want no more discussions with you. It's clearly fruitless.
     
    4 people like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice