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.

 Breotan wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Where are swords illegal that guns are not?

Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).

Wow. I just looked up some articles about switchblades and apparently you can't even own them anywhere, even on Indian lands unless you're a member of the armed forces and are issued one. Or have only one arm.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011-title15-chap29.htm

In some jurisdictions in the United States, OC pepper spray, stun guns, tasers, and other less-lethal/non-lethal defensive devices are restricted by law, or require permits to purchase/carry.


Here in N.C., you need a handgun purchase permit, or have a valid CCW, to purchase a crossbow.

No such thing as an inalieable right. Just stuff we've made up. The universe doesn't give the slightest gak if you have a gun or not, or if you continue to breathe in and out for that matter.
The whole argument on both sides is based on semantics and cultural bias and you're as likely to be able to pull yourself inside out as you are to convince anyone of your argument on the Internet.

Guns are dangerous if not handled correctly. I think that someone who is blasé about a weapon around kids is fething mental, and this woman should consider herself incredibly lucky that the kid didn't blow it's face off in front of her.
That's much worse for any parent than being shot in the head yourself.

If she ever gets to pick up a gun again, I hope she fething well remembers that.

 Chongara wrote:

 Hordini wrote:



I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.

What I mean is that if you confine the discussion to political and legal reality:

If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.

Then that isn't a discussion. The legal reality is that any meaningful restrictions on gun ownership in general are by definition, unconstitutional. If we set the space for discussion on changes in law strictly to what is constitutional, than the discussion must by definition be either affirming we change nothing or moving to readily increase gun access. Since only one side of the potential debate is on board with either of those options, there is by definition no debate or discussion to be had at least with regards to the law.

The only space for any kind weighing of ideas to occur is in the space of "Should the constitutional protections be as strong as they are, why or why not. If not what are the alternatives?".

That's only if the discussion is revolving around ways to address the issue that further decrease access. Perhaps there are other ways to address it? Since we've been mostly talking about negligence, accidents, and otherwise unintentional shootings in this thread, maybe we could propose some ways to improve the situation that don't revolve around making guns less accessible to law-abiding citizens. Lately, I've heard more talk about casting guns as a public health issue. While I don't entirely agree with this characterization, maybe there's some merit in approaching the issue with that mindset. Maybe we could focus on some education people and providing gun safety training. Many high schools teach sexual education as part of the health class curriculum in the United States. Maybe, if we can honestly accept that firearms are a part of American culture that aren't going away, we could start taking steps like including some basic gun safety information as part of health classes to students. It wouldn't even need to involve hands-on time with firearms. Just the basic safety rules (modified as necessary per age group), illustrating what they are capable of, and why children shouldn't be messing with them. If we don't want health teachers or PE teachers or whatever teaching that content, then schools could bring in volunteers to do short courses every once in awhile, similar to how some schools integrate outdoor education into their curriculum. After we do that for awhile, we can reassess and see if it seems to be having an impact on negligent shootings or accidents involving children, and then go from there.

There. I just made a suggestion on a potential thing that might do something to help improve the situation that doesn't involve further restricting a constitutional right. It can be done, we all just need to frame the issue as something other than "Guns are bad. We need to restrict them more," or "Guns are good. We should have less restriction on them." Those two stances are certainly not the only two ways to approach the issue.

I said the very same thing a few pages back. Not a mandatory "you must take this to own a gun" class, just making education on the subject more readily available.

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Why do you hate weapons so much?

Kind of a "loaded" question. I could ask you in return why do you love weapons so much? But I wouldn't presume that about you.

 Hordini wrote:
Do you believe that only the government and criminals should have a complete monopoly on violence, and that ordinary people should always be at the mercy of either one or the other?

No.

 Hordini wrote:
If you think the average person isn't competent enough to be able to handle a weapon, how on earth do you think the average person should be able to have a car, even with licensing and registration?

I don't really, people are often grossly irresponsible with cars. I look forward to them being self driving.

 Hordini wrote:
You seem like a person who is, quite honestly, terrified of other people. In fact, in this case you seem more afraid of people who bear you no ill will than those that potentially do.

I'm not really sure why you think that about me. seems quite personal though.

Maybe "hate" is too strong of a word. "Strongly dislike" might have been a better way for me to phrase it. I suppose I don't love weapons, but it's a fair question. I like them, because they, particularly firearms, level the playing field a bit. For example, a gun allows someone who is small and petite to defend themselves from an attacker of any size, or a group of attackers. It's difficult for me to see that as anything other than a positive, as even if guns didn't exist, physically strong people who wish to do harm to physically weak people would still exist, as would groups of people who wish to do harm to individuals.

As far as the being terrified of other people, you've made multiple posts now indicating how irresponsible you think others are, and how normal people shouldn't have guns because they can't be trusted with them, and that you will be happy when cars are self driving since you seem to think normal people can't be trusted with driving their own car either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I said the very same thing a few pages back. Not a mandatory "you must take this to own a gun" class, just making education on the subject more readily available.

If we make a point to teach children from a young age as part of a public school education, even if they don't ever want to have a gun, at least they will have some knowledge on the subject and understand that they are not toys, which could literally save their life should they ever encounter a firearm.

 Hordini wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Hordini wrote:



I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.

What I mean is that if you confine the discussion to political and legal reality:

If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.

Then that isn't a discussion. The legal reality is that any meaningful restrictions on gun ownership in general are by definition, unconstitutional. If we set the space for discussion on changes in law strictly to what is constitutional, than the discussion must by definition be either affirming we change nothing or moving to readily increase gun access. Since only one side of the potential debate is on board with either of those options, there is by definition no debate or discussion to be had at least with regards to the law.

The only space for any kind weighing of ideas to occur is in the space of "Should the constitutional protections be as strong as they are, why or why not. If not what are the alternatives?".

That's only if the discussion is revolving around ways to address the issue that further decrease access. Perhaps there are other ways to address it? Since we've been mostly talking about negligence, accidents, and otherwise unintentional shootings in this thread, maybe we could propose some ways to improve the situation that don't revolve around making guns less accessible to law-abiding citizens. Lately, I've heard more talk about casting guns as a public health issue. While I don't entirely agree with this characterization, maybe there's some merit in approaching the issue with that mindset. Maybe we could focus on some education people and providing gun safety training. Many high schools teach sexual education as part of the health class curriculum in the United States. Maybe, if we can honestly accept that firearms are a part of American culture that aren't going away, we could start taking steps like including some basic gun safety information as part of health classes to students. It wouldn't even need to involve hands-on time with firearms. Just the basic safety rules (modified as necessary per age group), illustrating what they are capable of, and why children shouldn't be messing with them. If we don't want health teachers or PE teachers or whatever teaching that content, then schools could bring in volunteers to do short courses every once in awhile, similar to how some schools integrate outdoor education into their curriculum. After we do that for awhile, we can reassess and see if it seems to be having an impact on negligent shootings or accidents involving children, and then go from there.

There. I just made a suggestion on a potential thing that might do something to help improve the situation that doesn't involve further restricting a constitutional right. It can be done, we all just need to frame the issue as something other than "Guns are bad. We need to restrict them more," or "Guns are good. We should have less restriction on them." Those two stances are certainly not the only two ways to approach the issue.

Right but my comments were specifically about approaching the conversation on the matter of the law. If we're not talking about legal steps the constitution is not at all relevant because we're not dealing with anything that constitutionality touches. Things that aren't discussions of the laws around guns are fine discussions to have and probably more productive ones. However it's a total non-sequitur in terms of specifically dealing with a potential gun law discussion, which was the line of conversation I was addressing.

My position stands. If we are to talk about the laws around guns (as the comments I was addressing were), there is no real discussion to be had if the Constitution in it's current form is held as sacrosanct. If we're to have a conversation about education, training, mental health support or any number of other things those are valid discussions. However they're not the gun law discussion and not relevant to my comments on the form the gun law discussion needs to take.

 Chongara wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Hordini wrote:



I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.

What I mean is that if you confine the discussion to political and legal reality:

If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.

Then that isn't a discussion. The legal reality is that any meaningful restrictions on gun ownership in general are by definition, unconstitutional. If we set the space for discussion on changes in law strictly to what is constitutional, than the discussion must by definition be either affirming we change nothing or moving to readily increase gun access. Since only one side of the potential debate is on board with either of those options, there is by definition no debate or discussion to be had at least with regards to the law.

The only space for any kind weighing of ideas to occur is in the space of "Should the constitutional protections be as strong as they are, why or why not. If not what are the alternatives?".

That's only if the discussion is revolving around ways to address the issue that further decrease access. Perhaps there are other ways to address it? Since we've been mostly talking about negligence, accidents, and otherwise unintentional shootings in this thread, maybe we could propose some ways to improve the situation that don't revolve around making guns less accessible to law-abiding citizens. Lately, I've heard more talk about casting guns as a public health issue. While I don't entirely agree with this characterization, maybe there's some merit in approaching the issue with that mindset. Maybe we could focus on some education people and providing gun safety training. Many high schools teach sexual education as part of the health class curriculum in the United States. Maybe, if we can honestly accept that firearms are a part of American culture that aren't going away, we could start taking steps like including some basic gun safety information as part of health classes to students. It wouldn't even need to involve hands-on time with firearms. Just the basic safety rules (modified as necessary per age group), illustrating what they are capable of, and why children shouldn't be messing with them. If we don't want health teachers or PE teachers or whatever teaching that content, then schools could bring in volunteers to do short courses every once in awhile, similar to how some schools integrate outdoor education into their curriculum. After we do that for awhile, we can reassess and see if it seems to be having an impact on negligent shootings or accidents involving children, and then go from there.

There. I just made a suggestion on a potential thing that might do something to help improve the situation that doesn't involve further restricting a constitutional right. It can be done, we all just need to frame the issue as something other than "Guns are bad. We need to restrict them more," or "Guns are good. We should have less restriction on them." Those two stances are certainly not the only two ways to approach the issue.

Right but my comments were specifically about approaching the conversation on the matter of the law. If we're not talking about legal steps the constitution is not at all relevant because we're not dealing with anything that constitutionality touches. Things that aren't discussions of the laws around guns are fine discussions to have and probably more productive ones. However it's a total non-sequitur in terms of specifically dealing with a potential gun law discussion, which was the line of conversation I was addressing.

My position stands. If we are to talk about the laws around guns (as the comments I was addressing were), there is no real discussion to be had if the Constitution in it's current form is held as sacrosanct. If we're to have a conversation about education, training, mental health support or any number of other things those are valid discussions. However they're not the gun law discussion and not relevant to my comments on the form the gun law discussion needs to take.

I guess my point is, if we are willing to approach the problem from another angle, there might not be a need for a gun law discussion.

 Chongara wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Hordini wrote:



I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.

What I mean is that if you confine the discussion to political and legal reality:

If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.

Then that isn't a discussion. The legal reality is that any meaningful restrictions on gun ownership in general are by definition, unconstitutional. If we set the space for discussion on changes in law strictly to what is constitutional, than the discussion must by definition be either affirming we change nothing or moving to readily increase gun access. Since only one side of the potential debate is on board with either of those options, there is by definition no debate or discussion to be had at least with regards to the law.

The only space for any kind weighing of ideas to occur is in the space of "Should the constitutional protections be as strong as they are, why or why not. If not what are the alternatives?".

That's only if the discussion is revolving around ways to address the issue that further decrease access. Perhaps there are other ways to address it? Since we've been mostly talking about negligence, accidents, and otherwise unintentional shootings in this thread, maybe we could propose some ways to improve the situation that don't revolve around making guns less accessible to law-abiding citizens. Lately, I've heard more talk about casting guns as a public health issue. While I don't entirely agree with this characterization, maybe there's some merit in approaching the issue with that mindset. Maybe we could focus on some education people and providing gun safety training. Many high schools teach sexual education as part of the health class curriculum in the United States. Maybe, if we can honestly accept that firearms are a part of American culture that aren't going away, we could start taking steps like including some basic gun safety information as part of health classes to students. It wouldn't even need to involve hands-on time with firearms. Just the basic safety rules (modified as necessary per age group), illustrating what they are capable of, and why children shouldn't be messing with them. If we don't want health teachers or PE teachers or whatever teaching that content, then schools could bring in volunteers to do short courses every once in awhile, similar to how some schools integrate outdoor education into their curriculum. After we do that for awhile, we can reassess and see if it seems to be having an impact on negligent shootings or accidents involving children, and then go from there.

There. I just made a suggestion on a potential thing that might do something to help improve the situation that doesn't involve further restricting a constitutional right. It can be done, we all just need to frame the issue as something other than "Guns are bad. We need to restrict them more," or "Guns are good. We should have less restriction on them." Those two stances are certainly not the only two ways to approach the issue.

Right but my comments were specifically about approaching the conversation on the matter of the law. If we're not talking about legal steps the constitution is not at all relevant because we're not dealing with anything that constitutionality touches. Things that aren't discussions of the laws around guns are fine discussions to have and probably more productive ones. However it's a total non-sequitur in terms of specifically dealing with a potential gun law discussion, which was the line of conversation I was addressing.

My position stands. If we are to talk about the laws around guns (as the comments I was addressing were), there is no real discussion to be had if the Constitution in it's current form is held as sacrosanct. If we're to have a conversation about education, training, mental health support or any number of other things those are valid discussions. However they're not the gun law discussion and not relevant to my comments on the form the gun law discussion needs to take.

i think I understand the parameters in which you wish to frame the discussion but I'm not sure what practical purpose would be served by placing such parameters on the discussion.

Over the course of the last few decades more states have become more permissive with firearm ownership. More states offer concealed carry permits with less restrictive application processes than ever. A large majority of the 50 states have language in their state constitutions that affirms the right of state residents to keep and bear arms with language that is as strong and clear if not more so than the federal constitution. More states have passed castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. The Supreme Court has affirmed the right to private gun ownership in multiple high profile cases. Gun sales are up, more NICS checks are run every year. The FBI crime states show that violent crime and gun crime is trending down on a consistent basis.

Given the current legal and cultural climate in the US regarding gun ownership I don't think it's pragmatic to discuss gun rights in terms of starting over from scratch when we are more entrenched than ever in maintaining a right to kee and bear arms that is in keeping with the 2nd amendment.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Maybe that should be a clue that we'll get further by addressing "people problems" instead of using hype and fear to demonize inanimate objects, and stepping on inalienable rights, in the interests of political agendas and failed social engineering techniques.

Of course, I'm sure that doesn't work for you.

Well it might work for me if you tone down the hyperbole. I disagree that "hype and fear" are the exclusive property of gun control advocates, there is a lot of hype and fear about home invasion and a "tyrannical government" which is perpetuated by the other side. I also disagree that guns are being "demonized", they are legitimately lethal and aught to be treated with caution and respect.

But aside from all that, I agree. We would get further addressing "people problems". Though I don't agree that guns shouldn't or can't also be addressed.

Prestor Jon wrote:
None of the items you previously mentioned are restricted for the reason that you claim guns should be restricted.

Well now you are just moving the goalposts to somewhere unreasonable. It's hardly surprising that the only thing "exactly" like a gun, is "a gun". Things which aren't guns are, by definition, going to be different to guns, and present slightly different risks. The things I mentioned are restricted because they present a risk if misused. They are restricted even to people who have never in the past misused them, which aught to (reasonably) fulfil your criteria.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Do you really think radioactive materials are restricted because somebody murdered school students with some or because somebody left some radiological materials out where an unsupervised toddler got into it and caused someone harm?

Yes, children have been killed by playing with radioactive material. In 1987 Leide Ferreira (age 6), died after her father unwittingly gave her Caesium-137 from his scrap yard to play with. It was very sad, reports said that she painted it on her skin because she thought it was pretty. People have also been murdered using radioactive material. I can't think of anyone specifically murdering school children (people usually favour a gun for that), but of course, a dirty bomb has been a national security concern for some time.

Prestor Jon wrote:
What medication do you believe I'm prohibited from taking because somebody else abused it? If we get into our failed drug war and how prohibition doesn't restrict access we should probably start a new thread. There are restrictions on prescription drugs but none of those restrictions prohibit me from getting prescription drugs if I want them.

Sorry, you really aren't making much sense. You're asking about restricted things, and then going off on tangents about semi related things. Is there some point to this? I have answered your question. If you want a specific restricted medicine, then I choose antibiotics (tetracyclines if you want even more specific), they're not even especially dangerous, yet they are still restricted. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

I do find it curiously interesting that people believe constitutional gun ownership is a right that cannot be taken away.

Last I knew of history...the Constitution had Amendments.

So called "rights" that can be granted or taken away with a vote.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

So really...what "rights" do you think you have that the government cannot take away?

 Hordini wrote:
I suppose I don't love weapons, but it's a fair question. I like them, because they, particularly firearms, level the playing field a bit. For example, a gun allows someone who is small and petite to defend themselves from an attacker of any size, or a group of attackers. It's difficult for me to see that as anything other than a positive, as even if guns didn't exist, physically strong people who wish to do harm to physically weak people would still exist, as would groups of people who wish to do harm to individuals.

Well I appreciate you sharing, you certainly have a fair point. Perhaps if only petite women had guns, instead of asshats like George Zimmerman, I would share your enthusiasm for them.

 Hordini wrote:
As far as the being terrified of other people, you've made multiple posts now indicating how irresponsible you think others are, and how normal people shouldn't have guns because they can't be trusted with them, and that you will be happy when cars are self driving since you seem to think normal people can't be trusted with driving their own car either.

A lot of people can be trusted, but unfortunately there are idiots out there who spoil it for everyone. The question is not "why should I be punished for their mistake", the question is "how do we stop those idiots hurting other people", if you can't think of a good answer to the second question, then you might have inadvertently answered the first question.

To maybe take a different tack...

To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?

And to the people in favour of less gun laws, do you think there are any possible gun laws that would increase safety without placing too great a burden on gun laws?

I'm just looking to see if this really is a case one side vs the other, with no compromise possible, or if it is possible to find better gun laws than what is in place now.

 sebster wrote:
To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?

Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.

Restrictions an magazine size, I don't think is a necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either. (not that useful)

 Smacks wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Maybe that should be a clue that we'll get further by addressing "people problems" instead of using hype and fear to demonize inanimate objects, and stepping on inalienable rights, in the interests of political agendas and failed social engineering techniques.

Of course, I'm sure that doesn't work for you.

Well it might work for me if you tone down the hyperbole. I disagree that "hype and fear" are the exclusive property of gun control advocates, there is a lot of hype and fear about home invasion and a "tyrannical government" which is perpetuated by the other side. I also disagree that guns are being "demonized", they are legitimately lethal and aught to be treated with caution and respect.

But aside from all that, I agree. We would get further addressing "people problems". Though I don't agree that guns shouldn't or can't also be addressed.

I never said that they were exclusive to the anti-gun lobby. I would ask that you don't "put words in my mouth".


And if you believe that the possibility of a violent home invasion is a fantasy and fear mongering, then (in my opinion) you're living in a fantasy land. It happens every freakin' day throughout the United States. And people have been raped and murdered in the process. Hell, I've had somebody try to come in on me and my family in the past, on more than one occasion. I've seen it during my time in law enforcement, having gone on numerous calls for break-ins and forcible entry. When working in corrections later on, a good portion of the inmates we had were in for breaking into homes (sometimes when people were home). And I live in a rural County in the American Southeast. Violent crime can happen anywhere, especially with the proliferation of the drug trade into rural areas over the last 30 years. Including home invasions.

In some of the cases, the victims took preventative measures to increase security Cameras, alarms, barred windows, etc. All except for that "fire extinguisher" I mentioned in past posts on this thread: A gun or some other personal means of defense. It ended badly for them. You make sure to have a smoke alarm in the house, buy what to you do when a grease fire starts? Do you run out of the house, call the fire department, and watch your house burn down while you wait? Or do you keep a proper extinguisher on hand to put out that fire yourself? The same basic principle applies to owning a gun, in addition to taking preventative measures to secure yourself, your family, and your home.

The part about tyrannical government is something that's blown out of proportion in some quarters, I agree. But as the old saying goes, "never say never". And we have skirted the edge of it (along with genocide) in the past.

As for the last part, guns HAVE been addressed. On ALL levels of government (the part you edited out of your reply). And while some of that regulation has been beneficial, a lot of it is just feel-good BS for politicians to drum up support and look good to the voters. Everything points to more than enough, short of outright bans and confiscation (a physical and political impossibility), being done, with questionable results. That's the part that you seem to miss or ignore.

Anyway, that's my position. You have yours. Neither of us are going to change each other's minds on the matter. I'm going to take a "agree to disagree" position a skip out on the remainder of this thread. Not to mention, remember to keep to my policy of not arguing with control control advocates and anti-gunners, and avoiding the resulting headaches.

Peace, out.

 Smacks wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Maybe that should be a clue that we'll get further by addressing "people problems" instead of using hype and fear to demonize inanimate objects, and stepping on inalienable rights, in the interests of political agendas and failed social engineering techniques.

Of course, I'm sure that doesn't work for you.

Well it might work for me if you tone down the hyperbole. I disagree that "hype and fear" are the exclusive property of gun control advocates, there is a lot of hype and fear about home invasion and a "tyrannical government" which is perpetuated by the other side. I also disagree that guns are being "demonized", they are legitimately lethal and aught to be treated with caution and respect.

But aside from all that, I agree. We would get further addressing "people problems". Though I don't agree that guns shouldn't or can't also be addressed.

Prestor Jon wrote:
None of the items you previously mentioned are restricted for the reason that you claim guns should be restricted.

Well now you are just moving the goalposts to somewhere unreasonable. It's hardly surprising that the only thing "exactly" like a gun, is "a gun". Things which aren't guns are by definition going to different to guns, and present slightly different risks. The things I mentioned are restricted because they present a risk if misused. They are restricted even to people who have never in the past misused them, which aught to (reasonably) fulfil your criteria.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Do you really think radioactive materials are restricted because somebody murdered school students with some or because somebody left some radiological materials out where an unsupervised toddler got into it and caused someone harm?

Yes, children have been killed by playing with radioactive material. In 1987 Leide Ferreira (age 6), died after her father unwittingly gave her Caesium-137 from his scrap yard to play with. It was very sad, reports said that she painted it on her skin because she thought it was pretty. People have also been murdered using radioactive material. I can't think of anyone specifically murdering school children (people usually favour a gun for that), but of course, a dirty bomb has been a national security concern for some time.

Prestor Jon wrote:
What medication do you believe I'm prohibited from taking because somebody else abused it? If we get into our failed drug war and how prohibition doesn't restrict access we should probably start a new thread. There are restrictions on prescription drugs but none of those restrictions prohibit me from getting prescription drugs if I want them.

Sorry, you really aren't making much sense. You're asking about restricted things, and then going off on tangents about semi related things. Is there some point to this? I have answered your question. If you want a specific restricted medicine, then I choose antibiotics (tetracyclines if you want even more specific), they're not even especially dangerous, yet they are still restricted. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

I'm not moving any goal posts. You want to discuss US gun laws and I am trying to keep you on topic. You have tried to bring in other forms of property into the discussion that aren't analogous to guns in any meaningful way and even after acknowledging that they are fundamentally different from guns you still claim that they are relevant. They are not.

The majority of US laws governing the possession of, handling of and disposal of radioactive materials predate 1987. Radioactive materials are a terrible example for you to use anyway because they are inherently a direct and active threat to your health. A gun sitting on a table is an inanimate object that must be operated by a person to be dangerous. Radioactive material sitting on a table bombards people with lethal radiation constantly without needin human actions to make it dangerous.

Hundreds of millions of guns owned by tens of millions of US citizens safely get through the day without harming anyone. Radioactive materials emit harmful radiation every day. One is a clear public health hazard the other are objects that can be safely handled by anyone without the need of any special equipment.

Antibiotics aren't restricted in any fashion that's analogous to the 20,000 gun laws on the books here in the US. People are free to get a prescription for antibiotics from their doctor anytime any day without having to pass a background check or pay special taxes or get permission from local law enforcement.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 sebster wrote:
To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?

Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.

Restrictions an magazine size, I don't think is a necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either. (not that useful)

"Assault weapons" or long guns of any type are used in an extremely small number of crimes. There is no significant difference in the lethality of "hunting" rifles and "assault" rifles. Both can kill with a single shot, both can be used at long ranges and both can be used to kill large numbers of people. When gun laws are scrutinized one finds that they don't target guns based on statistical evidence like incidence rates but instead target guns that have features that give them aesthetics that are in line with scary/military guns. They have more to do with the politics of pandering to people's fears than they do with creating sound policies that enhance public safety.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think spring loaded blades are illegal in NY state general (IIRC). I don't think swords themselves are illegal here, although wearing them openly may vary from place to place. They certainly don't give a gak where I live, or at least they don't care enough to enforce it.

I live in Buffalo and there is no way I could get away with carrying a sword. I wish I could,as you never truly know when the next Highlander will get picked. Maybe in CNY, where they don't have morals you can, but we respect the rule of law here dammit! It is funny I can buy a bolt-action rifle that can hit at 100yds relatively easy out of the box, but throwing stars are faux pas lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Not sure why you equate pro gun with being a conservative right issue. The majority of democrats are pro 2nd amendment too.

Sadly I dunno if that's true. It's definitely not a con/lib issue, but Democrats nationwide don't seem majority pro-2nd. Definitely a large percentage, but I dunno about majority. Unless you count anti-Republican as Democrats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 sebster wrote:
To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?

Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.

Restrictions an magazine size, I don't think is a necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either. (not that useful)

The thing is, how do you define a "longer rifle or weapon used primarily for hunting"? Barrel length? Caliber? By and far rifles aren't "weapons that are frequently used in crimes" that would be cheap, smaller caliber handguns. But since none of these regulations are trying to address that, then what are they trying to address?

I've come to the belief that the 2nd Amendment wasn't put in there to stop the US Army, rather the US police forces. Anybody that's studied any history of totalitarian regimes can see that it never starts with the military, at least in modern times. It's the police. And now that they outgun the vast majority of American citizens, the 2nd is kinda well, outdated. And outside looking in, I can totally see it looking outdated and therefore superfluous. But it's still a huge part of our (American) common heritage that we at least have the option.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I never said that they were exclusive to the anti-gun lobby. I would ask that you don't "put words in my mouth".

I don't want to put anything in your mouth. You mentioned hype and fear mongering, which no one has been doing in this topic really, and then you went on to say that anyone without a gun is almost certain to get raped and murdered in their own home (even steel bars can't protect you). But yeah, lets accuse the other side of fear mongering.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
And if you believe that the possibility of a violent home invasion is a fantasy and fear mongering, then (in my opinion) you're living in a fantasy land. It happens every freakin' day throughout the United States.

People win lotteries every day too, that doesn't mean it's even remotely likely to happen to you. The chances of shooting yourself with your own gun are higher.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Anyway, that's my position. You have yours. Neither of us are going to change each other's minds on the matter. I'm going to take a "agree to disagree" position a skip out on the remainder of this thread. Not to mention, remember to keep to my policy of not arguing with control control advocates and anti-gunners, and avoiding the resulting headaches.

I said it might work for me? I thought we were getting along quite well...

Prestor Jon wrote:
I'm not moving any goal posts. You want to discuss US gun laws and I am trying to keep you on topic.

No, you claimed that things shouldn't be restricted from a person who had never misused that thing. Then you said that it never happens, and asked me to name some things that are restricted, so I did. You're the one who can't seem to follow a consistent train of thought.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You have tried to bring in other forms of property into the discussion that aren't analogous to guns in any meaningful way and even after acknowledging that they are fundamentally different from guns you still claim that they are relevant.

I brought them up because you asked me to, but then you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "analogous". You are really twisting my words saying that I acknowledged they are fundamentally different from guns. I acknowledged that they are not literally guns. If the only thing you consider analogous to a gun is another gun, then you clearly don't know what analogous means, and are ,in fact, moving the goalposts to a place which I can only describe as stupid.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Radioactive materials are a terrible example for you to use anyway because they are inherently a direct and active threat to your health.

Not if it's handled responsibly. Why should someone who has never hurt anyone with radioactive material not be allowed to play with it?

Prestor Jon wrote:
In the US. People are free to get a prescription for antibiotics from their doctor anytime any day without having to pass a background

The doctor might prescribe them for you if he thinks you need them, he will probably want to know some of your medical history first. That doesn't mean you are free to get them as you please. He could also turn you down and send you away.

 sebster wrote:
And to the people in favour of less gun laws, do you think there are any possible gun laws that would increase safety without placing too great a burden on gun laws?

Apparently not.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Could we argue that a gun is somewhat unsafe by design?

You could argue it, and I would like to hear your justification that firearms are "unsafe by design"

I am a bit speechless over this.
The thing is designed to fire a projectile at high velocity with the intent of blowing a hole through something at range merely by pulling a trigger.
Mousetraps are freaking unsafe, it is just a matter of the degree of consequence: death is pretty high for the mouse anyway.

An untriggerlocked loaded gun in the hands of a small child as discussed by the OP is unsafe as the mother found out.

At work we lock-out-tag-out to prevent machines we are working on from being turned on and removing limbs.

Responsible control of the firearm is necessary to prevent accidental deaths.
Until we start charging $5000 a bullet for better control of discharges, better controls are needed.

 sebster wrote:
To maybe take a different tack...

To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?

And to the people in favour of less gun laws, do you think there are any possible gun laws that would increase safety without placing too great a burden on gun laws?

I'm just looking to see if this really is a case one side vs the other, with no compromise possible, or if it is possible to find better gun laws than what is in place now.

In regards to the latter, I'd really like to see some sort of firearm usage/safety component in schools. Something that will drill the 4 basic rules of firearm safety into everyone, even if they never touch a gun, and allow them to be safe if they encounter a firearm somehow other than just sitting there going "wat do?", and can at least safely operate one, if for no other reason than to unload & verify the weapon is safe. It's kinda silly that we have an established constitutional right that effectively is taboo in the educational system even from that perspective, and I think such a program could save a lot more grief than additional restrictions.

That said, I also think schools should teach stuff about basic finance, preparing personal taxes, using a credit card, etc, which is also apparently a taboo subject in the educational system

EDIT: To expand on the issue of additional or lesser restrictions, when you look at places with huge restrictions on firearms vs almost none in the US, the difference often isn't what one would expect.

Lets look at Portland vs San Francisco. Both large, tech heavy, west coast states that like to think of themselves as trendy cultural centers, and I've spent a whole lot of time in both.

In Portland, if you have a CHL (Shall-Issue state, relatively easy and straightforward to get), you can legally carry a loaded, fully automatic machine gun sporting a 100 round ammo belt with an underslung grenade launcher (if you can afford these things and own them in compliance with Federal NFA laws) and walk through the middle of the city or on public transportation, and be completely and totally hammered drunk while doing so. That's a completely legal thing believe it or not. If you don't have a CHL, you can do this anywhere outside a major metropolitan area as long as it's openly carried. You can go into a gun store, do your background check in a few minutes, and walk out with a standard Title 1 Firearm (anything that isn't an NFA firearm like a machinegun or SBR) such as an AR-15 or a Glock handgun very quickly and easily.

In San Francisco, getting a CHL is nearly impossible (may-issue state and the Bay Area is effectively NO-Issue) making concealed carry effectively banned, Open Carry is banned CHL or no, owning either of the above two types weapons is illegal, possessing a weapon while intoxicated is illegal, and possessing a weapon that is belt fed or that is using a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds is illegal (assuming you didn't own it before 1999), along with a long list of specifically banned weapons and banned features (e.g. a pistol grip *and* a detachable magazine makes an illegal "assault weapon"), in addition to a 10-day waiting period after purchase to take possession of any firearm, and SF now has laws regarding mandatory videotaping of firearms related transactions (leading to the last gun store within city limits to close their doors).

And yet SF's lowest yearly homicide rate in 2002-2013 was more than 2.5x the homicide rate Portland was that year.
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Portland-Oregon.html
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Francisco-California.html

The mindset in Portland & Oregon is that basically anything bad you'd do in such a situation is already illegal, such as a negligent discharge within city limits or shooting someone, so banning the original thing is kinda pointless. I read something in some scifi book (might have been Starship Troopers) where there was a line about how it wasn't against regulations to be drunk on duty, only being unfit for duty, which aren't necessarily exclusive, and that fits the mindset of a place like Portland. It's also just one of those things where just because it's legal doesn't mean people actually go out and do it, particularly with any sort of regularity, and thus banning it isn't really changing anything. As we can see, despite being able to own much more powerful weaponry and carry it practically anywhere, even while intoxicated, Portland isn't overrun with drunken gun battles, while San Francisco, despite having far more restrictions and safety legislation, has far more murders.

 Smacks wrote:
Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.

Restrictions an magazine size, I don't think is a necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either. (not that useful)

Yeah, I think those are both reasonable points. The issue with many US gun laws is they're driven by fear of spree killings, when by far most common death related to firearms is suicide, and the second most common are single murders, where the victim knew the killer. And handguns do most of those killings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
Apparently not.

Give them time


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In regards to the latter, I'd really like to see some sort of firearm usage/safety component in schools. Something that will drill the 4 basic rules of firearm safety into everyone, even if they never touch a gun, and allow them to be safe if they encounter a firearm somehow other than just sitting there going "wat do?", and can at least safely operate one, if for no other reason than to unload & verify the weapon is safe. It's kinda silly that we have an established constitutional right that effectively is taboo in the educational system even from that perspective, and I think such a program could save a lot more grief than additional restrictions.

Interesting answer. It's maybe kind of a bit of cheating, because you're answering with a bit of legislation that actually increases the presences of guns in people's lives, but the answer was interesting enough I'll let that pass

Anyhow, I'm not sure firearm education is needed, certainly not universally. Gun ownership is down to around 40% of homes, and slowly drifting down. Guns are a big part of some people's lives, and a big part of the culture in some areas, but for many other places they exist in movies and in endless gun debates, not actually as part of their lives. In terms of competing for scarce class time and resources, it isn't really up there with first aid classes, or basic finance, or anything else like that.

I do certainly agree that classes that like would be great for anyone buying a gun. They could be handled through a local range, or by local police forces.

That said, I also think schools should teach stuff about basic finance, preparing personal taxes, using a credit card, etc, which is also apparently a taboo subject in the educational system

Definitely agree. Just doing a simple example - if you want a $2,000 holiday, how much will it cost if you save $50 a month on 5% interest, and how much will it cost if you borrow for the holiday now and repay $50 at 10% interest? It blows people's minds because they've never had the maths laid out in front of them. It's $1,900 vs $2,450, by the way

EDIT: To expand on the issue of additional or lesser restrictions, when you look at places with huge restrictions on firearms vs almost none in the US, the difference often isn't what one would expect.

You can't just pick two cities and compare. There are so many factors that go in to murder rates (average income, income disparity, long term unemployed rate, rate of drug use etc), that whatever impact gun laws are having will be absolutely dwarfed, making it very easy to cherry pick favourable comparisons.

Actually extracting the impact guns have on murder rates is very difficult. There is almost certainly a factor, because nothing else can adequately explain the massive difference US murder rates compared to other developed countries. But beyond that, it gets extremely difficult.

 sebster wrote:
To maybe take a different tack...

To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?

And to the people in favour of less gun laws, do you think there are any possible gun laws that would increase safety without placing too great a burden on gun laws?

I'm just looking to see if this really is a case one side vs the other, with no compromise possible, or if it is possible to find better gun laws than what is in place now.

I'm sort of in the middle on this. There are some gun laws that are very, very stupid. I won't go into any extended detail because that's a bit beyond the scope of this thread, but the entire National Firearms Act needs to be reworked. Suppressors should not be on there, and nor should short barrelled shotguns or rifles. At the very least, the rules regarding such need to be less stupid.

This is my AR-pistol:



Totally legal. However, if I put a stock on it, it's a felony. If I put a vertical foregrip on it, and it's less than 26" total, it's a felony. Angled foregrip as pictured is legal, arm "brace" is legal", bringing that arm brace to my shoulder is a legal grey area. This is very, very stupid by I suspect any reasonable measure.

I would definitely support some specific gun control measures as well (tests for proficiency, much-much-much harder to acquire pistols, etc) but all of the things I would support would not be constitutional, in my opinion.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

You do, however, bring up the point of personal defense. Now I, personally, am not concerned with such, but that is the reason why I am not opposed to individual weapon ownership. I just find the idea that if people weren't able to own guns we'd descend into some distopian nightmare world or whatever ludicrous to the extreme.

It doesn't automatically mean you will turn into that, but it does mean that if the process ever does get started you'll lack the ability to resist as effectively. Its a safety mechanism.

And given the tighter government control all countries are experiencing you can't claim the threat isn't there.

Guns are like fire extinguishers. You hope you never have to use them, but if you do you'll be glad you had them.

I don't get this at all. You're allowed a pretty limited range of small caliber weaponry, and the government is shafting you and taking away your freedoms all the time.

1. When do you decide to react and have your armed uprising?

2. What do you think the odds are of that happening since you're so utterly outgunned, and outskilled by the national guard and US military wings?

Owning personal guns makes sense in the perverted sense that everyone else has them and you need them for personal safety, but as a tool to oppose state oppression that ship sailed before the civil war. No longer do you have the ability to form meaningful local militias to keep the goverment and the British from bossing your townships about. So the only real solution is to allow the population to own armoured cars and military grade equipment?

In that way, I can understand Afghani hill farmers owning AK-47's to defend themselves from bandits, militias and the US, same with a lot of other tribal areas in the world, and mega remote places like US ranches, but in anywhere vaguely populated? I don't get it.

 Hordini wrote:

As far as the being terrified of other people, you've made multiple posts now indicating how irresponsible you think others are, and how normal people shouldn't have guns because they can't be trusted with them, and that you will be happy when cars are self driving since you seem to think normal people can't be trusted with driving their own car either.

This is interesting, as it cuts right to the heart of the debate.

The lust to own weapons, apart from the childish compulsion to own boys' toys like the ones we owned as kids, is one part paranoia - that you need a weapon to level the playing fields against the threats all around us - and one part a dangerous over-confidence: I should own a weapon, because I am more responsible than average, just like those dreadful drivers who all think they're better than average. This is what Smacks is referring to .

The Constitution is entirely a red herring here, as there's plenty of evidence that the NRA perpetrated "a fraud on the American republic" in establishing it as justifying widespread ownership of weapons. Yet beyond morality, there are simply statistics. Handguns are an addiction, bought to "protect" people when instead they kill them, as this foolish woman's kid nearly did to her, and result in gun-death rate 10 times as high as other developed nations.

I'm not sure I would call the constitution a red herring. However it does tend to get used as a reason for owning guns, rather than enabling responsible ownership of guns because it has been determined that guns are a good thing.

For instance, the revolutionary was won partly by help of the militia, so it must have made sense to put in the 2nd amendment. However the conditions of warfare that the US is likely to find in the present day make a part time citizen militia consisting of all adult men useless.

Did the gun not have a safety? Surely a toddler cannot operate a safety catch, let alone understand the safety catch's existance, without some sort of demonic, Omen-esque, interference.

That type of pistol shown is a version of a Colt M1911.

AFAIK it has two safeties. One is a catch on the slide. The other one is the grip safety, to lock the trigger unless the user is holding it properly. Also it is a single-action gun, meaning you have to cock it before being able to fire.

It seems unlikely that a toddler would have the hand size and strength to get all this done. But the fact is the mother did somehow manage to get herself shot in the back.

 Smacks wrote:

 sebster wrote:
To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?

Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.

Restrictions an magazine size, I don't think is a necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either. (not that useful)

You do know 'assault rifles', no matter how you want to define them, are very rarely used in crimes. The gun 'frequently used in crimes' is a handgun.

 Talizvar wrote:
I am a bit speechless over this.
The thing is designed to fire a projectile at high velocity with the intent of blowing a hole through something at range merely by pulling a trigger.

Mousetraps are freaking unsafe, it is just a matter of the degree of consequence: death is pretty high for the mouse anyway.

An untriggerlocked loaded gun in the hands of a small child as discussed by the OP is unsafe as the mother found out.

At work we lock-out-tag-out to prevent machines we are working on from being turned on and removing limbs.

Responsible control of the firearm is necessary to prevent accidental deaths.
Until we start charging $5000 a bullet for better control of discharges, better controls are needed.

You still have not shown how firearms are "unsafe by design". If guns were so unsafe then the figure for deaths by negligent discharge would be significantly higher than ~500 out of the 359,000,000 (or .00014% of) firearms in the hands of US citizens. All you have shown is that the mother was negligent with her firearm, which is something that everyone in this thread agrees with. Please explain how firearms are "unsafe by design".

I'm curious as to what "controls" you believe are needed.

 Deadshot wrote:
Did the gun not have a safety? Surely a toddler cannot operate a safety catch, let alone understand the safety catch's existance, without some sort of demonic, Omen-esque, interference.

It is my understanding that all firearms have some sort of safety. I heard the the pistol was a Kimber, so if that is accurate then it is likely a 1911 style pistol with a grip safety, and a thumb safety. There is no indication that the thumb safety was engaged. I sincerely hope that your last sentence is satire.

Revolvers usually don't have a safety.

The fact that guns are designed to shoot lethal projectiles might be a reason to consider them unsafe in a way that a smartphone isn't. Maybe a toddler could manage to remove and swallow the battery, or choke on the SIM card.

Of course if you follow safety procedure, and remove and store the ammunition separately, an unloaded gun is just an inert machine.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
I am a bit speechless over this.
The thing is designed to fire a projectile at high velocity with the intent of blowing a hole through something at range merely by pulling a trigger.

Mousetraps are freaking unsafe, it is just a matter of the degree of consequence: death is pretty high for the mouse anyway.

An untriggerlocked loaded gun in the hands of a small child as discussed by the OP is unsafe as the mother found out.

At work we lock-out-tag-out to prevent machines we are working on from being turned on and removing limbs.

Responsible control of the firearm is necessary to prevent accidental deaths.
Until we start charging $5000 a bullet for better control of discharges, better controls are needed.

You still have not shown how firearms are "unsafe by design". If guns were so unsafe then the figure for deaths by negligent discharge would be significantly higher than ~500 out of the 359,000,000 (or .00014% of) firearms in the hands of US citizens. All you have shown is that the mother was negligent with her firearm, which is something that everyone in this thread agrees with. Please explain how firearms are "unsafe by design".

I'm curious as to what "controls" you believe are needed.

 Deadshot wrote:
Did the gun not have a safety? Surely a toddler cannot operate a safety catch, let alone understand the safety catch's existance, without some sort of demonic, Omen-esque, interference.

It is my understanding that all firearms have some sort of safety. I heard the the pistol was a Kimber, so if that is accurate then it is likely a 1911 style pistol with a grip safety, and a thumb safety. There is no indication that the thumb safety was engaged. I sincerely hope that your last sentence is satire.

Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.