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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, you don't understand, you're not FREE, man!

I remember when your monarch could walk the streets at night without a guard.
I think you had fewer firearms laws then too.

Correlation =/= causation. There were also fewer countries in the Balkans back in Gustav VI Adolf's time, does that mean the number of countries in the Balkans causes gun crime to drop?

You still haven't adressed the fact that rights are social constructs.

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.

Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

Just stating the way it is now. Though it really seems unnecessary to have the state entering peoples to make sure their guns are in safes. None of mine are (except my rifles) - I live alone and have a gun in every room that is easy for me to access. A gun is a safe is useless for self defense (unless you have a very expensive thumb lock safe). The only person at risk from my guns is an unwelcome guest. I don't waive my rights to privacy for owning a gasoline tank that could surely cause a lot of damage if improperly stored. Nor do I forfit might rights for having a water heater which can potentially launch out of my garage and blow up my neighbors house. There is no reasonable danger from guns not stored in a safe - certainly less dangerous than the things I mentioned above. People with minors living in their houses should have to use safety devices or suffer prosecution for negligence that is about as far as I am willing to go on that.

Plus - there is no way to really enforce these kinds of inspections without a gun registry. I can pretty much assure you - if something like that happens the extreme right is going to lose their freaking minds.

Would you forfeit your right to privacy by operating a nuclear reactor?

Naturally you would, because society understands that certain types of facilities and equipment need to be monitored for safety by higher authorities than their immediate owner.

There would need to be a gun registry. The extreme right will lose their minds. It will be a sad day for them when it comes about.

However perhaps avoiding the extreme right from losing their minds is not the top concern of the people who want more gun control.

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

Hrm, that absolutely would not fly in the US. The most basic exercise of one freedom cannot and does not forfeit another freedom, especially without due process.

Even aside from the legal issues, there are deep social, cultural, and economic issues that would make random home police inspections...a questionable possibility in the US. Americans, broadly speaking, simply do not have the toleration for such police intrusion, police have never shown themselves to be great actors in such capacities (and public trust is low as a result, the drug war has not been kind), and the resources necessary for such inspections on the scale of tens of millions would be enormous, and the efficacy...questionable in relation to that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would you forfeit your right to privacy by operating a nuclear reactor?

Naturally you would, because society understands that certain types of facilities and equipment need to be monitored for safety by higher authorities than their immediate owner.

There would need to be a gun registry. The extreme right will lose their minds. It will be a sad day for them when it comes about.

People don't have a legal right or need to have nuclear reactors. Can you think of something else similar to change my perspective here? What dangerous things can Americans have in their homes that they are currently not forced to have state inspections for?

It will be a sad day for everyone. Remember Waco? It will be like that all over the place. It would do a lot more harm than good. That is a the definition of a bad idea.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would you forfeit your right to privacy by operating a nuclear reactor?

As long as you are not using material that is legally designated as being owned by the US Dept of energy (uranium and plutonium), you absolutely do not. For small fusion reactors (yes they do exist, several dozen individuals have made them in the US, they dont provide much power and require more power to operate than they output, but they do exist), you can build one in your apartment with no legal restrictions.

More to the point however, if we're talking something like a traditonal uranium fed fission reactor, that is something beyond the means of the individual, that is a major undertaking involving dozens or hundreds of people, the scale of such an item is just too far beyond the scope of personal ownership.

jouso wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.

Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?

Part of the argument with the right to doctor assisted end of life is that people could be coerced into such a thing. If evidence is given unlawfully to the police the courts can, and do, throw it out. You can't lawfully sell yourself into slavery. You can't waive your right to a safe workplace. Your work boss can make you sign all sorts of crazy unlawful things, but the court will not honor those contracts.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would you forfeit your right to privacy by operating a nuclear reactor?

Naturally you would, because society understands that certain types of facilities and equipment need to be monitored for safety by higher authorities than their immediate owner.

There would need to be a gun registry. The extreme right will lose their minds. It will be a sad day for them when it comes about.

However perhaps avoiding the extreme right from losing their minds is not the top concern of the people who want more gun control.

We aren't talking about gun control. We are talking about the state coming into my house and forcing me to do things. I honestly pity anyone that has to deal with that kind of invasion for any reason. You could pass some gun laws and it wouldn't cause the reaction (though they will almost certainly have no affect) I was talking about but things like gun registries (which would be a useful tool in disarming Americans in the future) and forced state inspections inside your home (a breach of another constitutional right) will have that reaction.

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard

Herzlos wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard

Of course - that is not something I would want to deal with on a regular basis ether and in all honesty - I would probably sell all my registered firearms as a result. Here in the states though - you don't even have to register your firearms - you are supposed to but most people don't.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard

Of course - that is not something I would want to deal with on a regular basis ether and in all honesty - I would probably sell all my registered firearms as a result. Here in the states though - you don't even have to register your firearms - you are supposed to but most people don't.

Other than a literal handful of states you don't ever have to register any of your firearms in the US. CT has an assault weapon registry that's been around for a few years but law enforcement and gun owners are ignoring it. A few states make you register a pistol to your concealed carry permit. There is no national registry and the majority of states have no registry either. A very tiny percentage of gun owners in the US are supposed to register a few particular firearms under specific circumstances in a few states, that's it.

Theres no mechanism for registration in most places outside of NFA items, annd maybe half a dozen states with varying registration requirements depending on the type of firearm IIRC.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard

Of course - that is not something I would want to deal with on a regular basis ether and in all honesty - I would probably sell all my registered firearms as a result. Here in the states though - you don't even have to register your firearms - you are supposed to but most people don't.

Other than a literal handful of states you don't ever have to register any of your firearms in the US. CT has an assault weapon registry that's been around for a few years but law enforcement and gun owners are ignoring it. A few states make you register a pistol to your concealed carry permit. There is no national registry and the majority of states have no registry either. A very tiny percentage of gun owners in the US are supposed to register a few particular firearms under specific circumstances in a few states, that's it.

So out of the some odd 500 million firearms in the states - how many are currently registered? Like less than 5%?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Theres no mechanism for registration in most places outside of NFA items, annd maybe half a dozen states with varying registration requirements depending on the type of firearm IIRC.

I bought a few pistols without a concealed permit - I think those are registered to me in some way.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard

Of course - that is not something I would want to deal with on a regular basis ether and in all honesty - I would probably sell all my registered firearms as a result. Here in the states though - you don't even have to register your firearms - you are supposed to but most people don't.

Other than a literal handful of states you don't ever have to register any of your firearms in the US. CT has an assault weapon registry that's been around for a few years but law enforcement and gun owners are ignoring it. A few states make you register a pistol to your concealed carry permit. There is no national registry and the majority of states have no registry either. A very tiny percentage of gun owners in the US are supposed to register a few particular firearms under specific circumstances in a few states, that's it.

So out of the some odd 500 million firearms in the states - how many are currently registered? Like less than 5%?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Theres no mechanism for registration in most places outside of NFA items, annd maybe half a dozen states with varying registration requirements depending on the type of firearm IIRC.

I bought a few pistols without a concealed permit - I think those are registered to me in some way.

Probably less than 5% and all of those are only registered locally nothing more than intrastate.

Herzlos wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard

That is all sorts of messed up.

In order for me to practice one constitutional right you are saying I should have to totally give up another.

Don't you see how pants on head stupid and dangerous this is?

To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.

Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, you don't understand, you're not FREE, man!

I remember when your monarch could walk the streets at night without a guard.
I think you had fewer firearms laws then too.

Correlation =/= causation. There were also fewer countries in the Balkans back in Gustav VI Adolf's time, does that mean the number of countries in the Balkans causes gun crime to drop?

You still haven't adressed the fact that rights are social constructs.

Didn't mean to imply causation. Was pointing out how your society is becoming less free. Your monarch can't freely walk the streets. Less freedom also does not mean more safety. It just means less freedom. Freedom is something we are always talking about right? Free to choose safe foods. Free to choose clean energy. Free to marry whomever you wish, worship however you wish. Free to study what you wish. Free to discuss what you wish. Only freedom can be scary, so better reign that in. For a ruling class freedom is only good to get you to the top. Then you reign that in before someone else climbs that same ladder.

But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?

Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.

You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.

That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard

That is all sorts of messed up.

In order for me to practice one constitutional right you are saying I should have to totally give up another.

Don't you see how pants on head stupid and dangerous this is?

You sure you aren't wearing a hat of +5 Hyperbole? You pretty consistently pick up a point and take off into the boonies with it.

Herzlos was stating who it works where they are located, and that seems pretty reasonable. It's not "pants on head stupid". It works for them.

What is "pants on head stupid" is posters claiming the right will go full on Waco to prevent a legal government authority from ensuring their precious One Ring, er, guns are safely stored according to the law.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.

Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.

And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.

We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:

"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment

and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).

 Insurgency Walker wrote:


But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?

This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.

Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.

And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.

We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:

"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment

and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).

There is a considerable middle ground of people who would be happy with reasonable restrictions such as licensing (safety training, etc), registration and banning the sale of high capacity weapons such as the assault rifles that have been used in so many recent massacres.

That is where the compromise will be found, and the vociferous but less numerous groups at the two ends of the spectrum will end up not getting everything that they want, but at least getting some of it.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.

Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.

And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.

We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:

"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment

and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).

I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms? Rights are nice and great, but a school is not a place where it should ever invite the possibility of a shooting in my understanding (I would think of a range from a bank to the battlefield would be more appropriate). In my head it's the same old argument with the "drive slower" crowd: Other people make mistakes, so drive slow even if you don't. Similarly, other people might be irresponsible with their guns even if you are not. For those of you who have both a kid and your guns, would you lock the guns away/get rid of them completely if that meant that your kid gets to go to school safely every day?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.

Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.

And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.

We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:

"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment

and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).

There is a considerable middle ground of people who would be happy with reasonable restrictions such as licensing (safety training, etc), registration and banning the sale of high capacity weapons such as the assault rifles that have been used in so many recent massacres.

That is where the compromise will be found, and the vociferous but less numerous groups at the two ends of the spectrum will end up not getting everything that they want, but at least getting some of it.

Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns. Also, when the interactive map in NYC of all registered gun owners wen't live, robberies spiked, because people knew who had guns, and who didn't. This isn't classified information, you can look up registry lists if you put in Freedom of Information Act requests.

Also, define an "assault weapon" and what constitutes "high capacity" magazines. And how do you deal with the millions already in circulation?


I'm ok with making background checks required (as discussed above), as well as gun theft reporting (those are massively under-reported in the US). I'd also like to see gun owners more liable for things that happen with their firearms. If my 8 year old gets ahold of my pistol, and either shoots himself or his sister by accident, I should go to jail for negligence, possibly manslaughter. He shoots up his 3rd grade classroom, I should be held as an accomplice. That will spur responsible ownership. Those are decent starting grounds for discussion.

Most people in the USA aren't gun owners, and are happier than you with the idea of licensing and restrictions.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:


But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?

This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.

Well I hate to let the cat out of the bag, but it's what this country was founded on. The Declaration of Independence which was the most crazy forward thinking documented of its time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Most people in the USA aren't gun owners, and are happier than you with the idea of licensing and restrictions.

But our government is supposed to protect minority's rights too.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.

Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.

And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.

We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:

"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment

and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).

I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?

Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.

Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.

As the gun massacres increase, the pressure for restrictions also will increase.

Eventually the minority right to own a dozen high power assault rifles will not prevail.