My compromise for gun control

How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime
If you want to buy a gun in Japan you need patience and determination. You have to attend an all-day class, take a written exam and pass a shooting-range test with a mark of at least 95%.

There are also mental health and drugs tests. Your criminal record is checked and police look for links to extremist groups. Then they check your relatives too - and even your work colleagues. And as well as having the power to deny gun licences, police also have sweeping powers to search and seize weapons.

That's not all. Handguns are banned outright. Only shotguns and air rifles are allowed.

The law restricts the number of gun shops. In most of Japan's 40 or so prefectures there can be no more than three, and you can only buy fresh cartridges by returning the spent cartridges you bought on your last visit


I think this is the compromise most anti-gun people want. I notice American gun owners like to point out other countries with legal guns and their low crime rate. This means that guns themselves are fine it is the people but they ignore the laws around guns. All they see is one can own a gun. A gun owner is allowing a tremendous amount of government into their life in these places. Through their choice to own a gun they no longer have the same rights to privacy and search warrants as the average person. In American terms that gun owners is forever on parole. Police can and will enter your home to check on the guns. There is actual testing and licenses which must be renewed. Many guns are outlawed. But at the end of the day you may own a gun.

The problem is DEEP at the heart of gun ownership in America is the planning of war and hate of government so instead of living like Norway or Japan (2 counties that the alt-right gun owner loves otherwise) they choose to "protest" in full military gear and threaten a war. Not a good look when you claim to be peaceful.

 

So yes I said fists kill more people than rifles. Having said that, 1/3 of the gun control today is aimed at rifles. Specifically those that look like military assault rifles.

For God’s sake it was meant to not threaten war but to show how responsible gun owners are. Right wing, left wing, republicans, independents, democrats, 3%ers, militia, Antifa, black panthers, everyone under the sun except globalists. With all of these conflicting factions showing up, not a single shot was fired.
We didn’t burn down Richmond. We even cleaned up our own trash afterwards. That’s how responsible people protest.

 

Diesel

I think the people here talking of gun control, want prudent controls on all guns I don’t believe anyone has been advocating for ‘rifle control’, yes military assault rifles might be a topic but only in the wider context. To try and claim disingenuously that somehow that the major problem is with JUST rifles and not guns as a whole is to me laughable. To repeat

The murder victims by

Firearms (of which rifles are just one type) - 10,265

Hands, fists, feet - 672

The thing is that many, many gun owners that have commented on the forum have claimed they have guns in part or as a whole for overthrowing the government.

Who are the ‘globalists’?

 

My barber was strapped with a Glock 9mm on his belt as he was cutting my hair today.

 

You can get rid of fleas in other ways.

 

The check is in the mail
The truck is on the way
I promise this won't hurt at all
We are only here to liberate you
Jesus will return
Jeffery Epstein committed suicide
Donald Trump did nothing wrong
Global Warming is imaginary
I promise I won't come in your …

 

Yes most of the gun control mentioned now is aimed at rifles. That’s why I referred to it. Sure handguns kill far more but the politicians seem to have rifles in their sights for some reason.

I’m not one advocating to overthrow the government, but the 2A was written give citizens the guarantee to prevent a tyrannical government from stripping us of our rights.

Who are the globalists? Look them up. I’m not going to sit here all day and search for the answers to your questions.

 

I think people see rifles on TV all the time and think that's what people must have lol. Other than mass or spree murder, don't really see folks hold up a filling station with a rifle though. Usually handgun or shotgun.

When someone kills one person no one really cares or makes too much of a fuss, but if it's a mass or spree killing that's when they target the weapon as the automatic rifle in most cases these days. So it's not actually even your normal gun crime that's a problem with rifles, it's mostly the mass and spree killings as voted by the people.

 

And another thing too, if you have an AR15, that means you should have a shotgun yeah? Well if you're using a rifle to storm someone's home rather than that shotgun you're a clown I think. Semi automatic 12gauge single long barrel.

Seeya. Fucken. Later.

Or not really cause you dead.

 

Why do you have to take all day to search for answers to questions in reference to something you yourself mentioned? If you dont know who the globalists are why did you bring them up? I dont get it

 

Diesel

So you wouldn’t advocate using guns to overthrowing what you see as a tyrannical government but you think guns are held to prevent a tyrannical government.

What is your position because there seems to be a contradiction in your stance?

What ‘rights’ are you talking about – and at what point do gun owner start shooting police officers to protect them.

LOL – you don’t know and you can’t even be bothered to find out?

Thing is - who do you think they are – I mean you brought them up.

I mean when- I - went looking, what came up in google were a number of articles explaining that ‘globalists’ is been used by far right, neo-Nazis and white supremacists as a code word for the old Nazis Jewish conspiracy theory -as the Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt put it, “Where the term originates from is a reference to Jewish people who are seen as having allegiances not to their countries of origin like the United States, but to some global conspiracy.”

I mean so should I presume from you telling me to ‘look them up’ that what you are saying is that you are a neo-Nazis or white supremacist?

 

They might use those things, with the exception of nukes, but it wouldn't be to the scale that we see in foreign conflicts. The US government's first priority is to preserve the infrastructure as much as possible and to win the hearts and minds of the citizens. A Blitzkrieg style approach wouldn't accomplish any of those two.

 

Unless you're Sherman marching to the sea, of course

 

We could, instead, just mark prohibited persons and forgo the background checks on DLs all together. As to why I would give gun owners tax exemptions for training and mental evaluations. Two reasons:

1. As it stands, law abiding citizens have the individual right to keep and bear arms. Since it's considered a right, you can't put undue burdens to exercise it. By making it free or a tax exemption, you're not putting as much burden on those who don't have the money to pay for it.

2. If it's a tax exemption, then gun owners would have an incentive to get training. The more trained gun owners there are, the less likely for accidents and negligence.

The 60-70% will also get free mental evaluations and treatments unrelated to gun ownership.

 

No thanks. I'm not going to be forced to get a government mandated mental evaluation so that the 30% or however many gun owners in this country can be made to feel like they're not being singled out.

Hard pass

 

A reason we can all agree upon

 

Mac

What does that even mean?

Who are the ‘prohibited persons’ by what criteria would you judge them and how you find them?

Well that is disputed - as a well-regulated militia maybe – and wouldn’t a well-regulated militia have background checks and evaluations and training.

Why not – you have the right to free speech but do you have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre? If you have the right to own a gun do you have the right to own one if you are a known criminal, mentally unstable or irresponsible?

As a parent you have the ability to give your toddler a razor sharp scalpel to play with does that make that ok and if you saw that or knew about it would you not want to stop it happening?

As said if it is your choice to own a gun why should people that have chosen not to pay for those that have?

So you would force people against there will to take regular and ongoing examinations for the whole of their lives just so 30% of people can own something that seems like a consumers choice and which has little value to society as a whole and can even be shown to be actual detrimental to it?

*

As I’ve said before how is this meant to be a good deal or even a compromise

It seems to me that 30% are getting the perks and what they want while the 70% are getting all the burdens while the problems of easy access to guns in US society wouldn’t in large part seemed to be tackled.

 

Mac

And I ask again - if someone’s reason for owning a gun is to kill police officers (gun ownership as protection against government) then would they pass the ‘mental’ evaluation’ suggested by you before they were allowed to own a gun?

 

Oh for fuck sake – this has been gone over a thousand time do the gun lobby ever learn anything?

It’s the same argument that if only the German Jews had had guns then the holocaust would not have happened – here is something I posted years ago when someone said that and that it would have stopped blacks been lynched.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as justified and come to their defence or just seem it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed locking away?


Think about US history, did the Native American that fought back, get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese descent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them, and what if they had shot at the police would they have got general popular support? What about these hauled in front of McCarthy, would people have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

The question being why didn’t the decent and good white people of those areas (where the lynching’s took place) protect the black people being abused, they had access to guns, they had votes, they filled juries, they could have done a lot to stop what was happening, why didn’t they?

*

Gun owners claim they will protect the US against ‘tyranny’ but it seems to me that more often than not gun owners have been the ones that have stood in the way of justice and progress.

Back then if a black person spoke out against injustice in many place in the US they would have found a crowd of bedsheet wearing gun owners outside their house demanding they shut up - or worse.

I remember an interview with some gun holding tea party supporters at the time Obama was president that were basically threatening armed insurrection ‘if Obama turned America socialist’

If you look at gun ownership in the US and the vast majority of them lean to the right politically and a solid group lean very heavily to the right.

Then there is the NRA’s call to arms against ‘them’ (the progressives) who they seem to claim are trying to destroy America in the video ‘The violence of lies’

The

 

So

As I keep asking when would those gun owners begin killing their political opponents and who would they be?