Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

if gun owners are so law abiding, then why are they so afraid of rational gun laws?

People in this thread have advocated for both the repeal of the second amendment and for people to have their weaponry taken by force.. Rational you say?

Please directly quote them then.

The only mention I can think of having seen of "weaponry taken by force" had to do with the idea that requiring people to surrender specific types of firearms would likely end up having to involve force given the attitudes some people have towards their firearms.

And if we really want to talk about "rationality", I can point to a few posters who keep bringing up the arguments of alcohol versus firearms as causes of death whilst ignoring the factors involved.

A few I misread as I had to take a look back at them, and one of the take by force was disbanding the NRA and taking their assets rather then taking people's personal weaponry though the idea was flouted a few gun threads ago.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked. We need national gun laws, and treat guns like cars. registered, and licensed and insured. Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims.

Sure, just repeal the second and ban all guns.

Same poster however, which tripped me up.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

if gun owners are so law abiding, then why are they so afraid of rational gun laws?

People in this thread have advocated for both the repeal of the second amendment and for people to have their weaponry taken by force.. Rational you say?

That just my opinion, there are many rational gun laws that have been proposed and rejected by the NRA who funds politicians to make sure they don't happen.

You'd think after the vegas shooting that banning any conversion kits to allow weapons to fire like a automatic weapon would be a easy thing to ban, but yet not even that little thing could get passed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
I like how pro gun control advocates refuse to lump ladder deaths, car deaths, and gun deaths together because, in their mind, guns are inherently more dangerous than a car or a ladder.

Ladders are useful tools. The point of them is to allow you to reach places you couldn't reach unaided. Their fundamental purpose is peaceful. Cars are inefficient means of transportation and a society absolutely should be structured so as to minimise the amount of cars needed. It's safer and more efficient to have a robust system of public transportation. Cars, nonetheless, are meant for transportation. A gun is inherently more dangerous than a car or a ladder because it was designed to kill people. A gun is a weapon. You can fall from a ladder or run someone over with a car but those are incidental events arising from the nature of physical reality and not something intended when the items in question were first invented. We're not talking about school ladderings here, are we?

By that definition, alcohol, which is not a useful tool, but causes eight times the number of deaths as gun related homicides, should be subject to far stricter controls than guns.

you mean like holding bar tenders legally responsible for drunk drivers?

sobriety check points?

not being able to purchase until 21?

losing your licence for drunk driving and horrendous legal fines and fees

alcohol is subjected to stricter controls than guns.

Shooters aren't even held responsible for the hospital bills of their victims.

but I guess since the laws against driving drunk don't stop drunk drivers, we should repeal all those laws as well, it's the same rational gun users spew.

Such naive innocence in your statements.

Relapse wrote:
The thing I get from this thread is that there is a huge double standard between guns and alcohol, which causes far more death and trouble in people’s lives than guns.
For some illogical reason, many people hate guns because, “gun kill”, yet have nowhere near the same problem with something that kills 8 time’s the number of people as gun related homicides. Even if you lumped in all the other people killed by guns, it would still be dwarfed by alcohol related deaths.

Alcohol is a bad comparison as alcohol is not something that is intended to destroy things and kill living creatures.

On a different note. Interesting article I found on gun culture.

https://secondnexus.com/news/politics/white-males-guns-empowerment-economic-uncertainty/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_aabbeda0135911e8b994b71562261940

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If there is nothing that can change your mind on a subject you aren't arguing in good faith anymore; you're just a zealot. The ability to change your opinion when presented with new evidence is the foundation of being reasonable.

What new evidence is being presented? This thread has the same statistics and proposals as every other thread on a US school shooting has had.

You made an absolute statement, I'm pointing out the absurdity of that absolute statement. You didn't say that there was nothing in this thread that could change your mind, you said there was nothing, full stop, that could. Stop moving the goalposts and own your mistake.

No I haven’t, I’ve been deliberately specific and what wouldn’t convince me agree to specific proposals like repealling the 2nd amendment and become a proponent for confiscation guns from people. If you think I’ve stated an absolutist position that nothing could convince to support any type of additional firearm regulation laws then you’ve either mistaken me for a diffeeent poster or misread my posts.

Please.

Prestor Jon wrote:


There isn’t a scenario that could happen that’s going to convince me that gun ownership is bad. I’m always going to support our 2A rights.

How do you extrapolate my supposed complete support for no gun regulation whatsoever from that post? Guns are already regulated and I’m ok with most of the regulations on the books currently. Stating my belief that the right for people to own firearms is a key foundational right that shouldn’t be revoked doesn’t mean that I’m a proponent of wholly unregulated gun ownership that is a complete misinterpretation on your part.

In a previous gun thread d-USA and I were in agreeement on supporting new regulation that would require companies that host gun shows should be required to have a FFL because gun shows are de facto pop up gun stores and that such regulation wouldn’t affect the right for private individuals to continue to conduct private sales on their own as long as they aren’t doing so under the umbrella of a gun show.

You seem to want to limit the debate to only be between you and people that can be persuaded to agree with your personal interpretation of “reasonable” gun regulations.

You know, speaking of misinterpretations, how do you get this:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If there is nothing that can change your mind on a subject you aren't arguing in good faith anymore; you're just a zealot. The ability to change your opinion when presented with new evidence is the foundation of being reasonable.

to make any sort of statement on what side of the debate you are on in any way? Literally all I've said is that if you cannot change your mind on a subject for any reason whatsoever then you're not arguing in good faith. That's it. There's absolutely no trace of a comment on which side you're on in the debate whatsoever. Considering you complain about misrepresentations, that's more than a little ironic, don't you think?

I'll reiterate my argument so that you cannot misrepresent it again: If you're in an argument or a debate and you proclaim that it is impossible for you to change your mind on the subject, you are no longer arguing in good faith.

For the record, my stance on gun control is that it would be futile in the US; the genie's already out of the bottle.

Relapse wrote:
The thing I get from this thread is that there is a huge double standard between guns and alcohol, which causes far more death and trouble in people’s lives than guns.
For some illogical reason, many people hate guns because, “gun kill”, yet have nowhere near the same problem with something that kills 8 time’s the number of people as gun related homicides. Even if you lumped in all the other people killed by guns, it would still be dwarfed by alcohol related deaths.

Yes, perhaps we should fund massive programs both to promote responsible use of alcohol and also to, crucially, end the many factors that cause people enough anguish that they take up drinking as well as provide free care for those who do get addicted. Additionaly, cars should not be used very much and guns should be banned.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If there is nothing that can change your mind on a subject you aren't arguing in good faith anymore; you're just a zealot. The ability to change your opinion when presented with new evidence is the foundation of being reasonable.

What new evidence is being presented? This thread has the same statistics and proposals as every other thread on a US school shooting has had.

You made an absolute statement, I'm pointing out the absurdity of that absolute statement. You didn't say that there was nothing in this thread that could change your mind, you said there was nothing, full stop, that could. Stop moving the goalposts and own your mistake.

No I haven’t, I’ve been deliberately specific and what wouldn’t convince me agree to specific proposals like repealling the 2nd amendment and become a proponent for confiscation guns from people. If you think I’ve stated an absolutist position that nothing could convince to support any type of additional firearm regulation laws then you’ve either mistaken me for a diffeeent poster or misread my posts.

Please.

Prestor Jon wrote:


There isn’t a scenario that could happen that’s going to convince me that gun ownership is bad. I’m always going to support our 2A rights.

How do you extrapolate my supposed complete support for no gun regulation whatsoever from that post? Guns are already regulated and I’m ok with most of the regulations on the books currently. Stating my belief that the right for people to own firearms is a key foundational right that shouldn’t be revoked doesn’t mean that I’m a proponent of wholly unregulated gun ownership that is a complete misinterpretation on your part.

In a previous gun thread d-USA and I were in agreeement on supporting new regulation that would require companies that host gun shows should be required to have a FFL because gun shows are de facto pop up gun stores and that such regulation wouldn’t affect the right for private individuals to continue to conduct private sales on their own as long as they aren’t doing so under the umbrella of a gun show.

You seem to want to limit the debate to only be between you and people that can be persuaded to agree with your personal interpretation of “reasonable” gun regulations.

You know, speaking of misinterpretations, how do you get this:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If there is nothing that can change your mind on a subject you aren't arguing in good faith anymore; you're just a zealot. The ability to change your opinion when presented with new evidence is the foundation of being reasonable.

to make any sort of statement on what side of the debate you are on in any way? Literally all I've said is that if you cannot change your mind on a subject for any reason whatsoever then you're not arguing in good faith. That's it. There's absolutely no trace of a comment on which side you're on in the debate whatsoever. Considering you complain about misrepresentations, that's more than a little ironic, don't you think?

I'll reiterate my argument so that you cannot misrepresent it again: If you're in an argument or a debate and you proclaim that it is impossible for you to change your mind on the subject, you are no longer arguing in good faith.

For the record, my stance on gun control is that it would be futile in the US; the genie's already out of the bottle.

I interpreted it as applying to me because you quoted my post directly preceding your statement. If it’s meant as a general statement then you shouldn’t post it in the form of a rebuttal to a specific previous post.

I’ve never claimed it’s impossible for me to change me mind on the implementation of new reasonable gun control regulations. I’ve stated it’s impossible to change my mind to hold a diametrically opposed absolutist view to my current support of the right to firearm ownership.

I refute your statement, if I hold one position and another person holds the opposite position then an ensuing debate isn’t about convincing the other side to abandon their position and adopt a wholly contradictory position, the purpose of debate is to try to find out if it’s possible to compromise on some middle ground. Portrayed as a Vann diagram we would want to pursue the area wherein our respective ideas of “reasonable” gun regulations over lap. The idea that it’s pointless to debate an issue with somebody unless they are capable of being convinced to wholly agree with your opinion is crazy.

 skyth wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The thing I get from this thread is that there is a huge double standard between guns and alcohol, which causes far more death and trouble in people’s lives than guns.
For some illogical reason, many people hate guns because, “gun kill”, yet have nowhere near the same problem with something that kills 8 time’s the number of people as gun related homicides. Even if you lumped in all the other people killed by guns, it would still be dwarfed by alcohol related deaths.

Alcohol is a bad comparison as alcohol is not something that is intended to destroy things and kill living creatures.

On a different note. Interesting article I found on gun culture.

https://secondnexus.com/news/politics/white-males-guns-empowerment-economic-uncertainty/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_aabbeda0135911e8b994b71562261940

Alcohol is literally poison.

I ' am sorry but I don't believe in gun control and never will. Why a long time I could have brought a military issue weapon with select fire switch for semi to full auto. I back out of it because I thought the guy who told me his friend can get me any gun I want . Which at the time I thought he was BS me so I told him what I want , but his friend delivered to my dismay. The gun control people never talk about illegal weapons or black market arms which is just easy then going to a gun store. I had stare down barrel of a hand gun twice in my life ,these guys got them illegal at a drug house not at gun store. So much for gun control on that which they never talk about. Now WHY ARE WE NOT TALKING ABOUT HOW FBI DROP BALL ON THIS SHOOTER. He did youtube about being professional school shooter back in Jan 2018 and was reported to the FBI which did not follow up on it. The Governor of Florida is out blood at the FBI for major resignation of those involve in the case of the shooter. To are friends across the pond you don't need gun to kill large number of people look what happen last year in France and UK , all you have to do kill truck driver take his truck and mow down a lot of people. In UK steal car or truck and do the same thing. Evil people are out there to harm to us all , be very ware of your surrounding and get the hell off your phone and ipods. Look around.

Remember the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham "debate" when they were asked afterwards what could change their mind on the subject of creationism and Nye said "proof" while Ham said "nothing"? That's what I'm getting at. Categorically rejecting the possibility of anything changing your mind on a subject is arrogant as hell, because it presupposes that you already have perfect knowledge on the subject in question.

I also never said that it was pointless to have a debate where people hold diametrically opposed opinions and are incapable of changing their minds; I said that you're arguing in bad faith. The two are distinct concepts. You really need to stop attributing statements to me that I've never made. I'll just stop here, because we're clogging up the thread.

 skyth wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The thing I get from this thread is that there is a huge double standard between guns and alcohol, which causes far more death and trouble in people’s lives than guns.
For some illogical reason, many people hate guns because, “gun kill”, yet have nowhere near the same problem with something that kills 8 time’s the number of people as gun related homicides. Even if you lumped in all the other people killed by guns, it would still be dwarfed by alcohol related deaths.

Alcohol is a bad comparison as alcohol is not something that is intended to destroy things and kill living creatures.

On a different note. Interesting article I found on gun culture.

https://secondnexus.com/news/politics/white-males-guns-empowerment-economic-uncertainty/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_aabbeda0135911e8b994b71562261940

sirlynchmob wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

if gun owners are so law abiding, then why are they so afraid of rational gun laws?

People in this thread have advocated for both the repeal of the second amendment and for people to have their weaponry taken by force.. Rational you say?

That just my opinion, there are many rational gun laws that have been proposed and rejected by the NRA who funds politicians to make sure they don't happen.

You'd think after the vegas shooting that banning any conversion kits to allow weapons to fire like a automatic weapon would be a easy thing to ban, but yet not even that little thing could get passed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
I like how pro gun control advocates refuse to lump ladder deaths, car deaths, and gun deaths together because, in their mind, guns are inherently more dangerous than a car or a ladder.

Ladders are useful tools. The point of them is to allow you to reach places you couldn't reach unaided. Their fundamental purpose is peaceful. Cars are inefficient means of transportation and a society absolutely should be structured so as to minimise the amount of cars needed. It's safer and more efficient to have a robust system of public transportation. Cars, nonetheless, are meant for transportation. A gun is inherently more dangerous than a car or a ladder because it was designed to kill people. A gun is a weapon. You can fall from a ladder or run someone over with a car but those are incidental events arising from the nature of physical reality and not something intended when the items in question were first invented. We're not talking about school ladderings here, are we?

By that definition, alcohol, which is not a useful tool, but causes eight times the number of deaths as gun related homicides, should be subject to far stricter controls than guns.

you mean like holding bar tenders legally responsible for drunk drivers?

sobriety check points?

not being able to purchase until 21?

losing your licence for drunk driving and horrendous legal fines and fees

alcohol is subjected to stricter controls than guns.

Shooters aren't even held responsible for the hospital bills of their victims.

but I guess since the laws against driving drunk don't stop drunk drivers, we should repeal all those laws as well, it's the same rational gun users spew.

For something not intended to kill things it does a pretty good job of doing just that, since it kills multiple timed more people per year than guns.
I’ll check, but off the top of my head, I believe the CDC states that one out of ten working age males per year die from alcohol related causes.
To brush that aside by some statement saying alcohol is not meant to kill, is really silly.

Relapse wrote:
The thing I get from this thread is that there is a huge double standard between guns and alcohol, which causes far more death and trouble in people’s lives than guns.
For some illogical reason, many people hate guns because, “gun kill”, yet have nowhere near the same problem with something that kills 8 time’s the number of people as gun related homicides. Even if you lumped in all the other people killed by guns, it would still be dwarfed by alcohol related deaths.

It is not a double standard. Alcohol is an ingredient in drinks. A gun is a weapon. Drinks should be held to different standards than weapons. Drinking alcohol has been an integral part of many if not most Human cultures since the dawn of history. Drinking alcohol (moderately) offers many benefits to people who are getting together to have a fun time. There aren't really any alternatives. Guns on the other hand are completely useless unless you want to kill someone else. Apart from violence, guns serve only two other functions: hunting and recreation shooting. For hunting all you need is a hunting rifle (or shotgun, if you hunt birds and such), for recreation shooting you can join a gun club which will provide you with weapons and targets, just like it is in other countries. There is no possible reason why people should be allowed to own pistols, or rifles that serve no practical purpose like the AR-15 or why they should be allowed to have such weapons in their homes. The second amendment of the US constitution is a primary example of a seriously outdated law as the era in which a bunch of civilians with guns could threaten a authoritarian government is long gone. I am curious as to why people think they should be allowed to own guns for other purposes than hunting, or why they are against more regulations. All I ever hear is stuff along the lines of "because I belief in the 2nd amendment and the right to own guns" or "because we might need guns to overthrow the evil government", both of which aren't reasonable arguments.
I would much appreciate it if some supporters of gun rights could explain their actual arguments of why they believe that gun ownership is a good thing. For me as a European, this is kinda hard to grasp.

And for the record, I think there are actually a lot more restrictions on alcohol in the US than on guns. Alcohol is also something that people use a lot more often than guns, therefore the relatively high amount of people killed by alcohol is due to the huge amount of people exposed to alcohol and does not say much about the actual lethality of alcohol.

Alcohol is a red herring in this argument, on both sides.

So are ladders

And automobiles.

And vans and trucks and knives

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Honestly if it's that easy for the general public to get vehicle registration info, I'm all for vehicle registration lists being abolished too. It's a gak idea to have information like car listings and gun listings easily available to the public, I'd hazard a guess that it'd cause a big increase in thefts of such items.

A big part of the security of my valuable collectable vehicle is simply not many people know it's there. Obviously neighbours and friends and whatnot do, but the whole bloody country doesn't know.

That is such a conflated opinion I have no idea how it exists.

And plus did no one read the article? It was a poor intrepretation, cars and who owns them can only be accessed by people who have the rights to do so.

Alcohol is literally poison.

Yeah, it was actually banned in the US, people forget how its a addictive substance and literally posions your body.

Now WHY ARE WE NOT TALKING ABOUT HOW FBI DROP BALL ON THIS SHOOTER. He did youtube about being professional school shooter back in Jan 2018 and was reported to the FBI which did not follow up on it.

Well they did the Police went to his house and found nothing wrong. If your going to blame anyone, blame the local police for not doing their job. Or literally anyone for not listening. Its not 1 factor but a multitudes of factors that lead to this event.

Why does anyone think Federal registration is possible or legal? When you register your car it’s in a state database not a national one. There is no Federal DMV or Federal voter rolls etc, it’s all done at the state level that’s how federalism works.

And?

“assault rifle”

It was called an Assualt Weapon, not an Assualt Rifle. an assualt rifle is an actual term.

ie : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] Assault rifles were first used during World War II.[6][7][8] Though Western nations were slow to accept the assault rifle concept, by the end of the 20th century they had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing full-powered rifles and sub-machine guns in most roles.[8] Examples include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle.[8]

Canada!

"On September 8, 2014 an appeal by the Barbra Schlifer Clinic to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to rule that the withdrawal of the non-restricted firearms registration requirement was unconstitutional was denied. The applicants sought to show that the removal of the registration requirement denied women their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to: "life, liberty and security of the person". In its judgment the court ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the registration of non-restricted firearms had been of any measurable benefit to women and that statistically rates of firearms-related violence had been following a trend downward before the requirement was introduced and had not changed after the requirement had been withdrawn.[42]"

The Federal government operates the No Fly List and they have made numerous mistakes with it and refused to fix them.

Looked it up found that information lacking. Some of the information I found points to that it is being fixed. Your Generalizations are not helping your argument.

The Federal government maintains the database of NSA surveillamce and has illegally misused it on multiple documented instances.

Source it. Federal Agencies are allowed to under the patriot act and various surivellence acts to spy on suspected US entities with a warrant.

Not illegal.

I fail to see what a list of gun owners would do to prevent someone from killing a legal gun owner and taking their weapons ala Sandy Hook. Also, throwing around "Mental Illness" as a bar to owning guns is hopelessly, laughably vague. Schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, what exactly are you talking about? And if someone takes medication, do we still not let them have guns? If someone overcomes their depression or whatever, they then have to go to a court to prove they should be able to exercise their rights again?

They are a afraid of abuse which is possible with NRA intervention. (Which has become a corrupted entity currently).

Define 'good reason' and how you put a system in place to verify a 'good reason' exists.

For example, bulk ammo is cheaper. When I shoot, I go through several magazines from each gun I take out, so can easily blow through 500-1000 rounds each time I shoot. Why should I be forced to buy ammo in boxes of 20 rounds when a crate of 1000 is a lot cheaper? What purpose does that serve?

If you ask for a loan you need good reasoning. Is it logical? Is it Rational? "I need more ammo cause it is cheaper, I am planning on going on a trip."

Do not make it complicated.

When it becomes time to discuss registration lists, they really enjoy lumping cars, ladders, and guns together, because they are just equivalent consumer products. Right? Right?

False Equalivence.

Car =/= Gun

Gun is a lethal weapon. A car is a mode of transportation. Cars can also be used and are heavily regulated in comparision to Guns.

Guns are not regulated at all currently apart from civilian vs military weapon debates. Guns currently are a free-range as of current.

The question that needs to be asked IMO is why people are driven to attack schools and why they use a gun for it. My guess would be the status of the gun in some places and an attitude of machismo and belief in “might is right” that pervades some cultures within the US. I think some gun laws are symptomatic of this, but not the cause.

Currently hard to address with a Republician held Congress and a Republician President who keep cutting spending into school, education, and mental health, and keep recieving lobbying money from the NRA.

I have pointed several times, that a hand gun can in some states be legally obtain only at the age of 21. This kid went out and bought a high powered rifle (AR-15) at the store at 18. Twice the killing the potential of a handgun. That is a flaw in the system that allowed someone to abuse it.

Declining Mental Health and the Rise Of White Nationalism is no coincidence in most of these cases. AS the people often targeted (as said shooter) are weak individuals who are lonely and isolated easy for recruitment. Its usually the same people and these are at risk people and we have no way to report them until they have done something. This person was reported but nothing was done at the state and national levels.

I've always believed that it's the attitude people have towards guns that is the problem. Gun ownership may be at an all time high, but respect for guns is at an all time low. Just look at how many people refer to their guns as toys, and you'll understand what I mean.

A bit of both, here we see them as toys, other countries treat them with respect. (Not to Generalize, but the US has more homocides and prison sentences for minor crimes in general, thus driving more people into crime because of their private prison system of debts)

Heres a great article! https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Home invasions and burglaries are kind of a thing, in case you didn't know.

Yes because robbers will immedately respond to a national registry only accessible by government entities.

Yes it is 'easy' as easy being a national worker or state worker to go corrupt and give it criminals. Which 1. is a conspiracy theory and such a flaunt of reason I have no idea how that has baring other than fear mongering.

People in this thread have advocated for both the repeal of the second amendment and for people to have their weaponry taken by force.. Rational you say?

Who? I have advocated for stricter laws in place like we do have for cars and other items. And I've only been met with hostility towards my statements and gross generalizations for anti-guns.

(I am also a gun owner BTW)

So enough of the BS.

By that definition, alcohol, which is not a useful tool, but causes eight times the number of deaths as gun related homicides, should be subject to far stricter controls than guns.

WE did ban alcohol for a while you know. Alcohol is an actual poision, an addictive substance and is a natural process that also has many medical uses. False Equalivence, and Leap of Logic indeed.

You'd think after the vegas shooting that banning any conversion kits to allow weapons to fire like a automatic weapon would be a easy thing to ban, but yet not even that little thing could get passed.

Seek statement about NRA preventing gun legislation because of an entire Republican own caucus.

Alcohol is not subject to stricter controls than firearms. ANYONE over the age of 21 can buy whatever alcohol they ant in whatever quantity they want. Convicted felons can buy alcohol, people who have been adjudicated as mentally defective can buy alcohol, people who have been convicted of drunk driving can buy alcohol, people who have committed domestic violence can buy alcohol. There is no background check required to purchase alcohol. Being actively enrolled in state mandated substance abuse programs doesn’t prevent people from buying alcohol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alcohol_laws_of_the_United_States

Alcohol also cannot be bootlegged or moonshined LEGALLY. Which guns do not have that obligation. Also Alcohol selling requires a permit, WHICH guns do not!

So no you keep saying this statements but with no evidence.

We have many laws that are in place to regulate Alcohol. Which guns do not have.

So please educate yourself.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Alcohol is a red herring in this argument, on both sides.

So are ladders

And automobiles.

And vans and trucks and knives

Yup its an Equalivence, guns are a lethal weapon, cars are a mode of transportation but cars are more regulated than guns are.

The barring of the argument is "We need more regulations for guns."

And thats not a hard thing to ask for.

So far in this thread people have jumped to conclusions and assumed the worst and fear mongered. So yes that "Gun Owners List" Has yet to be disproved other than some NON-Government entity abusing it. If it is made private and only accessible by the state or federal level then boom safe. It would be the same thing for cars with registration numbers, locations, earnings, etc all placed on the list.

Not much to ask for.

sirlynchmob wrote:

You're the one putting your kids in unsafe conditions, you brought a gun into the house, and greatly increased their chances of getting shot.

You need to let go of that nonsense that more guns makes us safer, if that was in anyway true the US would be the safest place on earth. Yet clearly it's not. As gun ownership rises so do the mass shootings and all other gun crimes.

Lynch, I had neighbors once who thought a lot like you do. I suspect as the robbers raped and murdered them, they may have regretted that decision. Oh, and gun ownership is actually down, but violent crime is up. So, I don't see the correlation.

But I have lived in places with absurdly long police response times, where 911 told us the police would hold back until we were dead or the robbers left. So, you tell me what's safe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:


Source it. Federal Agencies are allowed to under the patriot act and various surivellence acts to spy on suspected US entities with a warrant.

Not illegal.

Actually, yes, illegal.

Only certain agencies are allowed that, and only within certain parameters. The CIA for example remains barred from a wide variety of operations internal to the USA. The NSA has, point of fact, been specifically prohibited from doing that under an Amendment to the Patriot Act, the USA Freedom act of 2015.

Further, the Patriot Act has already run into, on occasion, a brick wall called the 'Constitution', following the FBI's illegal detainment of Brandon Mayfield. Mayfield eventually received an apology and $2m for his detainment, but the initial ruling about violations of his 4th Amendment rights were overturned, on the grounds that being arrested, libled, and illegally detained did not give Mayfield standing and so the act was allowed to stand.

How would people propose to register 300 million+ weapons post facto? Particularly from a subset of the population that is in large part strongly and fundamentally opposed to the fundamental concept? This is not a trivial practical reality.

More to the point, there are registries that exist, and none of them have proven to be particularly accurate or problem free.

The ATF NFRTR is well known for poor data accuracy (it's not unheard of for people to find an NFA firearm after the owner has passed, find they have the registration paperwork but the ATF doesn't have a record on the registry...), has wait times of 6-12 months or more for additions and transfers, and is an entirely paper driven process for citizens because the ATF's website is literally incapable of accepting mandatory documents like..fingerpints and photographs. And that's with each transaction also requiring a $200 payment.

The CA AW registry is also a mess. My father had two weapons registered there, and despite having sold the weapons out of state within a couple of years of them being banned, he couldn't get *off* the registry. He sent the CA DOJ multiple certified mail letters with documentation of the fact that he had sold the weapons out of state, requesting to be removed from the registry, but was still sent scary sounding letters about his "assault weapons" from the CA DOJ every once in a while, and it wasn't until he moved out of CA over a decade after selling the weapons that he stopped receiving them. He's probably still on the list.

Neither of these registries has served much of a criminal investigations purpose, mostly it's been post facto unregistered weapons charges (hey, you're not on the list!), but very little in the way of such registries being used to solve crimes.

The ATF registry is a piece of gak because they are legally barred from creating a digital registry, not because of any bureaucratic idiocy on their part.

 Vaktathi wrote:
How would people propose to register 300 million+ weapons post facto? Particularly from a subset of the population that is in large part strongly and fundamentally opposed to the fundamental concept? This is not a trivial practical reality.

Well, depending on the person answering, the ideal way would be that everyone hand them in, or that all gun owners be shot with their own weapons and then the guns seized. No, seriously, both of these positions have been getting bellowed on twitter lately, which makes me think our Russian problem has not gone away.

Thread is now locked - under review - warnings and suspensions sure to follow.