My compromise for gun control

Natural disasters tend to produce riots and mass violence.

A license doesn't really limit the amount of firearms you have depending on what system you're running. Some countries run gun licenses similar to driver's licenses. As long as you have a license, you can own pretty much whatever you want and as much as you want. My driver's license doesn't prevent me from owning 20 cars. My paycheck does that.

 

You were the one that asked about probabilities, not the purpose of the item. Thus, I limited my comparison to probabilities as I clearly stated.

Again, for the same reason why I carry a tourniquet when most Americans don't feel the need to.

Which EU country, though? Some EU countries have rather lenient carry laws.

I'm not sure how that is related to what you quoted.

 

The fact that you initially didn't cite any sources for your claim, for one.

 

Mac

Do they - have you examples, there was the fires in California and Australia, floods in the UK, the recent tornadoes and from what I can remember of earthquakes and tsunamis the impression is people help out rather than go on killing sprees. Even the supposed high levels of violence in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina were debunked.

One study done on disasters by the National Institute of Medicine did a list of the 10 myths and facts on disasters number 4 is

Myth : Disasters bring out the worst in people (e.g., looting, rioting). Fact: While there are isolated cases of antisocial behavior, which tend to be highlighted by the media, most people respond positively and generously.

And your point is? We have already been through the exceptions I’m talking about those like the imagined dentist or accountant that have no real reason for having a gun and never really use it. So a limited supply would lessen the amount that could fall into the wrong hands if stolen.

 

Mac

Again - a first aid kit is not a weapon specifically designed to kill. There is no tangible risk to the general public if a first aid kit fell into the hands of a criminal or irresponsible person.

I’ve been saying this about the ‘purpose of the item’ several times now it been a main theme in this discussion. A first aid kit is not a lethal weapon there is no tangible risk to the general public if a first aid kit falls into the hands of a criminal or irresponsible person.

Again – why are they so far more afraid of been attacked than the majority of Americans that feel they don’t need a gun?

Again a tourniquet is not a gun there is no tangible risk to the general public if a tourniquet falls into the hands of a criminal or irresponsible person.

And as stated you are an ex police officer have had the training and presumably the responsibility tests and I presume keep your weapons secure without having to be asked and given the circumstances you may have ‘good cause’ to have a gun for self-protection.

But we are talking here of other gun owners like the imagined dentist and accountant, people that have no known enemies and live in quiet suburbs but say they need a gun for protection.

Is that rational and reasonable when the majority of people they know and live near don’t feel that need?

I mean does there request pass the ‘good reason’ criteria that would have to be passed within the EU for example?

Sorry but we do seem to be going around in circles here, I’ve already stated the minimum EU regulations. Possession of a gun is only allowed to those - who have good cause

And again - as I’ve said before given that this seems to be a consumerist choice (not a need) then why shouldn’t’ they have to take the responsibility for protecting others from their choice.

We have been through this. You proposed that people that wanted a gun should be given public assistance to help them in that ownership I don’t because it seems to me that it is a consumerist choice, and as such they should be responsible for protecting others from their choice.

 

Mac

What do you base your scepticism on?

More than half of gun owners do not safely store all their guns… The survey, believed to be the first nationally representative sample in 15 years to examine gun storage practices in U.S. households, found that 54 percent of gun owners reported not storing all their guns safely. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

That is a quote from the original post so not sure what you are saying?

You seem to accept the regulations concerning the securing of guns so I’m unsure why you seem to be arguing against it?

Here is that section again -

Any gun kept at home, place of work or in a motor vehicle 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.

If a person loses 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 fine and/or banned from owning a gun.

 

Just logic. Where else will you find guns so easily. And there is a huge market on TOR for guns. American dealers helping the world.

 

There is a much closer source to Europe for all kinds of arms (mostly Russian and copies of Russian guns). The American government doesn't usually supply guns unless there's oil or poppies around (and that's both parties).

 

My pistol was made in Austria

 

At this moment I’d like to thank Mac, all too often people in the gun lobby just jump into such threads shout insults or tied old slogans and then when these are shot down (pun intended) they don’t return.

So it is refreshing for someone to enter into some positive and interesting discussions.

 

Shoe

Your meme is just mindless sloganizing it is about reducing the complex into the simplistic and catering to irrational prejudices.

I mean do you even have the ability to discuss this issue in any reasonable and rational way – I’m sorry to say from passed experience I’d have to say no.

You push the idea that all ‘government’ is evil and deceitful – but this isn’t about ‘government’ this is about trying to keep gun out of the hands of criminals and the irresponsible.

Well maybe like 6 you don’t really care about that – that you don’t give a shit about all the deaths, as long as you get to have a gun unburdened by regulations – but if so don’t hide your selfishness, heartlessness and lack of empathy behind some supposed righteous indignation over ‘government’

 

One of thee best ever imo.....

 

So…you’re talking about a lethal weapon specifically designed to kill people and in your opinion that is one of the best things…that you have one of the best ways of killing someone?

Do you ever think about the things you say?

 

Ugh.....Balbus....Balbus.....Balbus........ *dragon shakes head in disappointment**
I do think about what I say all the time....
You read into things way overkill.... no pun intended

When i shoot my pistol, made in Austria at outdoor gun ranges, I'm amazed at the performance it gives with absolutely no feed jams, no double shots, no mis-fires.... hence no having to waste time breaking down the firearm to do repairs... and waste my fun and enjoyment to see how close I can get to the bullseye on a (non-human) paper target....

 

Gun control proposals

Here is an edit list I’ve published a few times before on the forum that was formed from a couple of lists me and MeAgain have presented at differing times.

*

Educate people about what the new legislation is about and would entail (Not taking away all guns, the goal is to reduce harm by limiting easy access to the criminal and irresponsible)

Reinforcing, enhancing, and mandating back ground checks for the purchase of a gun.

Immediate destruction of any weapon, ammunition, etc. used or acquired illegally.

Limiting the amount of legal ammunition that can be bought and retained.

Buyback programs - to get rid of or lower the number of midnight specials, assault weapons, etc.

All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence and responsibility to get a gun licence (part of which would be to pass a psychological evaluation)

A gun owner would need an up to date licence and insurance to carry on owning a gun (been found owning a gun without these will result in fine or and been banned from owning a gun).

Mandatory records of all sells or transfers of all firearms and immediate destruction of any that are discovered to be not recorded.

Any gun kept at home, place of work or in a motor vehicle 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.

If a person loses 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 fine and/or banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would result in a fine losing the owner’s gun license.

If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in a heavy fine and/or custodial sentence.

*

These would be national laws the same through all the states and a Federal department would be set up to monitor them and make sure they are been enforced equally throughout the country.

The fines raised and a tax on firearms manufactures would be used to offset cost of these programmes.

*

These are just suggestions and if people think of improvements please post your ideas.

 

Pete

And you are saying that you like a lethal weapon specifically designed to kill people and you take joy in having one of the best ways of killing someone.

So do you think it might be a good idea to try and stop such lethal weapons falling into the wrong hands?

Did you see the gun control proposals?

 

Yes, they add rules to people who are already following the rules. They do fuck all for preventing criminals from getting whatever they want from a Bounty Bar to a rifle. Your attempts at shaming legitimate gun sports are pitiful, we've heard it all before. And as usual, the aim is in the wrong direction. Gun control is useless if we don't address maniac control. And in the US, we aren't. Maniacs are a protected species it seems. Maybe you can rally Greta to this cause!

 

*dragon laughs green tail off*

First of all......Why don't you quote me to begin with instead of a non-addressing quote bubble with no name....and then say my name "Pete" in your post? Must be your game....

2nd of all......I do think, it might be a good idea to try and stop such lethal weapons falling into the wrong hands.

3rd of all.... no didn't see or read your gun control proposals. Nor will I, because you've demonstrated very effectively that you'll mis represent my words in such a way that gives you the ammunition (no pun intended) to wage war on me (no pun intended) to serve your overkill (no pun intended) agenda just to cherry pick my words. Which is why I won't read and comment on your question.

I had more respect for you brother B......had

 

Panic

Yada yada yada….sorry but this is the same old tosh, can you please produce something that is even akin to a rational argument?

In what way do the proposals do ‘fuck all for preventing criminals from getting whatever they want’? Have you got any rational counter arguments or are you going just with unsubstantiated assertion?

And as pointed out many, many times the US does not have exclusive rights to the mentally ill they are in every country it’s just that it is so much earlier for people with mental health problems (and criminals) to get hold of a gun in the US.

So wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest trying to limit the possibility of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people?