Gun Issues page 5

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

How would these measures step on anyone’s rights?
Explain that to me.
Right now!

EPR, I can answer that: the Constitution of the United States, which allows citizens to bear arms.

However, the same way blacks in America are allowed to vote now even though de jure they weren’t until the 1860s, we need to modernise our stance on this issue too.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Ok, let me ask you this. On this forum we have argued abortion.

Here we go again.

All of the left have given the human fetus absolutely zero value.

And I’m sure that you honestly believe this, though I’m still contractually obligated to say that’s still horseshit.

Apparently, so have all of these women who are so willing to destroy life.

Not touching that.

Now add in some of the other wonders of modern life, like drugging our kids in schools,

Hey, shots are safe… Mostly.

playing video games where you kill to get points with blood and guts everywhere.

There are still plenty of popular games that don’t involve that.

Also, like TV, most sane people (and children/teens) realize that video games are fiction.

The internet where young people never meet the people they interact with.

You can voice/video chat sometimes.

Kongregate is a good example of this. If we were face to face, would you people dare say some of the disrespectful things, or use language like is used on here?

Well if you say the same things as you do in here, I’d say yes.

I think the rash of shootings by young people are a combination of a lot of societal problems and the focus on guns is just an excuse not to face the real problems we are facing.

Because guns aren’t a large part in this.

Originally posted by jhco50:

We already exclude those people from them. Obviously you don’t know our laws.

And you obviously didn’t want to read the rest of his post, because (in my sate, at least) once you’re 18, you can get a rifle and when you’re 21 you can get a handgun.

Originally posted by jhco50:

There are already bullets flying around!

More bullets fired by panicing people in a crowded place filled with panicing people doesn’t make the situation better. At all.

 
Flag Post

SO has anyone pointed out the obvious bit, you know…how the 2nd Amendment was written in reference to organized militias, in a time when the US had no standing military?

Probably not.
Or, someone has, but a bunch of fucking morons that think they understand the Constitution have been screaming their heads off about how that’s wrong, and the 2nd means everyone can own any gun they want ever and no one can say different.

I’m a gun owner.
I enjoy shooting.

I would have zero problems, at this point, if all firearms were banned in the US tomorrow.
This shit is out of hand.

You can’t fucking claim anymore that the system works when some piece of shit can get his hands on a gun and kill FUCKING KINDERGARTEN KIDS.

Fuck you if you are even thinking of defending “gun rights” anymore. You’re full of shit, and completely ignorant about the facts of the problem.

 
Flag Post

PS, I’ve always advocated for stringent training/licensing for gun ownership.
I’ve always been screamed at like I’m some sort of lunatic for thinking that, by gun rights hawks.

I no longer think that my previous position is enough.
Take them all away.
It’s time.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

PS, I’ve always advocated for stringent training/licensing for gun ownership.
I’ve always been screamed at like I’m some sort of lunatic for thinking that, by gun rights hawks.

I no longer think that my previous position is enough.
Take them all away.
It’s time.

I agree that gun owners should have training. However, wouldn’t making guns illegal just create violent black markets? Plus, gun use would actually increase because of the forbidden fruit effect. That’s what I hear making drugs illegal does anyway. (I’m not being serious here, just making the point that gun and drug control actually has many parallels.)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

I agree that gun owners should have training. However, wouldn’t making guns illegal just create violent black markets? Plus, gun use would actually increase because of the forbidden fruit effect. That’s what I hear making drugs illegal does anyway.

I think the problem with some gun control is this—guns are already out and about in circulation, both in legitimate law abiding households, and underground. A complete gun ban would basically have some law abiding, reluctant people hand over their guns, while the rest remain out there, probably in unscrupulous hands. In other words, the cats already out of the bag. I don’t think (attempting) a total gun ban would do much for us.

Maybe some firearms courses, waiting periods, and psychological testing would help though, prior to future purchases.

 
Flag Post

A complete gun ban wouldn’t work, no. However, what would is gun regulation. Allowing all and any to have guns is not effective. You should need a permit. This works much, much better than America’s current gun control laws.

Source: all western countries apart from America.

 
Flag Post

Ok America, we get it, you have no gun problem. Everything is just fine.

 
Flag Post
However, wouldn’t making guns illegal just create violent black markets?

you already have them, since anyone ever convicted of a violent crime can’t legally own a gun.

Plus, gun use would actually increase because of the forbidden fruit effect. That’s what I hear making drugs illegal does anyway.

hmm…if criminalising drugs doesn’t make drug use less prevalent, how will criminalising guns make guns less prevalent?

well, drugs are much easier to make, much easier to hide, and much more fun, and some of them much more innocent too.


yeah i wouldn’t move to ban all guns cold turkey. you’ll want to disarm the criminal first, not the other way around.

 
Flag Post
A complete gun ban would basically have some law abiding, reluctant people hand over their guns, while the rest remain out there, probably in unscrupulous hands. In other words, the cats already out of the bag. I don’t think (attempting) a total gun ban would do much for us.

Yes, which is why the government would also need to grab the existing ones. Hence the term.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

How would these measures step on anyone’s rights?
Explain that to me.
Right now!

You betcha, I will right now!

When a law is passed, who follows that law? Would you say honest citizens? Of course. The criminal or nut-job in this case is not going to worry about laws, after all they are planning to break a few anyway. Now let’s say they pass more gun control laws, who is going to be affected? The law abiding. Those laws will not stop a nut job or criminal from breaking that law along with the others, so who would be punished for the deeds of the bad guy? The honest citizen who is exorcizing his/her rights without breaking any laws.

Now, let’s consider the second amendment. What does it say? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Again, that pesky second amendment. Now, not only are you infringing on the second amendment, you are punishing the honest citizen for anothers actions. Why, because you approach this subject with emotion instead of logic. This seems to be the common thread among you lefties.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
Originally posted by EPR89:

How would these measures step on anyone’s rights?
Explain that to me.
Right now!

EPR, I can answer that: the Constitution of the United States, which allows citizens to bear arms.

However, the same way blacks in America are allowed to vote now even though de jure they weren’t until the 1860s, we need to modernise our stance on this issue too.

We? You got a frog in your pocket? How do you propose to modernise laws in anothers country? More important, what business is it of yours what our laws read? Some more of that empathy crap?

 
Flag Post
The Supreme Court Decision, softest.

The 5-4 gun ruling follows the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision that struck down a handgun ban within the District of Columbia. That decision found, for the first time, that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” guaranteed by the Second Amendment applies to individuals outside the “well regulated militia” familiar to 18th-century Americans.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

When a law is passed, who follows that law? Would you say honest citizens? Of course. The criminal or nut-job in this case is not going to worry about laws, after all they are planning to break a few anyway.

Well, hypothetically, they could just want a gun, but not do anything else illegal with it.

Now let’s say they pass more gun control laws, who is going to be affected? The law abiding.

So you’re arguement that this would-be law infringes on people’s right, is about how this law wouldn’t, but another would?

Do you see the problem with your logic, here?

Those laws will not stop a nut job or criminal from breaking that law along with the others, so who would be punished for the deeds of the bad guy? The honest citizen who is exorcizing his/her rights without breaking any laws.

Because mandatory saftey courses are unnecessary?

Now, let’s consider the second amendment. What does it say? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Again, that pesky second amendment. Now, not only are you infringing on the second amendment, you are punishing the honest citizen for anothers actions.

If you’re going to be that anal about a two-century old law, then it’s already null-and-void, because of existing laws that limit the right to bear arms.

Why, because you approach this subject with emotion instead of logic. This seems to be the common thread among you lefties.

And amoungst you righties.

Seriously, both sides use emotion. Get over it.

Originally posted by jhco50:

The 5-4 gun ruling follows the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision that struck down a handgun ban within the District of Columbia. That decision found, for the first time, that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” guaranteed by the Second Amendment applies to individuals outside the “well regulated militia” familiar to 18th-century Americans. Because the capital city is a federal enclave, the 2008 decision left open, as a formal matter at least, whether the same principle applied in the 50 states.

Okay, if you dislike posting links that much, you could at least say either what article it was from, or just use the enitre article. I mean, it’s far from the best choice, but still…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

SO has anyone pointed out the obvious bit, you know…how the 2nd Amendment was written in reference to organized militias, in a time when the US had no standing military?

Probably not.
Or, someone has, but a bunch of fucking morons that think they understand the Constitution have been screaming their heads off about how that’s wrong, and the 2nd means everyone can own any gun they want ever and no one can say different.

I’m a gun owner.
I enjoy shooting.

I would have zero problems, at this point, if all firearms were banned in the US tomorrow.
This shit is out of hand.

You can’t fucking claim anymore that the system works when some piece of shit can get his hands on a gun and kill FUCKING KINDERGARTEN KIDS.

Fuck you if you are even thinking of defending “gun rights” anymore. You’re full of shit, and completely ignorant about the facts of the problem.

Emotional, are we?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Emotional, are we?

Do you not understand the amount of hypocrisy you are creating by saying that? I’m serious here, do you really not understand?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
Originally posted by EPR89:

How would these measures step on anyone’s rights?
Explain that to me.
Right now!

EPR, I can answer that: the Constitution of the United States, which allows citizens to bear arms.

However, the same way blacks in America are allowed to vote now even though de jure they weren’t until the 1860s, we need to modernise our stance on this issue too.

We? You got a frog in your pocket? How do you propose to modernise laws in anothers country? More important, what business is it of yours what our laws read? Some more of that empathy crap?

First of all, you proved to be unaware of what is ‘empathy’ in the previous page. Secondly, I mean “we” as a humanity. I care about 7,000,000,000+ people and how they’re governed, not a comparatively mere 312,000,000 like you do. Thirdly, unless you, jhco, are a judge or legislator, you will have no say in the matter nationally either. And you are not, unsurprisingly.
jhco, God forgive someone empathise deeply with people who have been murdered, aye? Seriously, you are using yourself nothing but emotional arguments attacking people. In softest_voice’s post at least he’s making an argument against guns. You’re doing nothing except ad hominem. I suggest you look up “ad hominem”, but I doubt you will.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
Originally posted by EPR89:

How would these measures step on anyone’s rights?
Explain that to me.
Right now!

EPR, I can answer that: the Constitution of the United States, which allows citizens to bear arms.

However, the same way blacks in America are allowed to vote now even though de jure they weren’t until the 1860s, we need to modernise our stance on this issue too.

We? You got a frog in your pocket? How do you propose to modernise laws in anothers country? More important, what business is it of yours what our laws read? Some more of that empathy crap?

First of all, you proved to be unaware of what is ‘empathy’ in the previous page. Secondly, I mean “we” as a humanity. I care about 7,000,000,000+ people and how they’re governed, not a comparatively mere 312,000,000 like you do. Thirdly, unless you, jhco, are a judge or legislator, you will have no say in the matter nationally either. And you are not, unsurprisingly.
jhco, God forgive someone empathise deeply with people who have been murdered, aye? Seriously, you are using yourself nothing but emotional arguments attacking people. In softest_voice’s post at least he’s making an argument against guns. You’re doing nothing except ad hominem. I suggest you look up “ad hominem”, but I doubt you will.

Then I feel sorry for you, you have a long road to hoe filled with a lot of disappointment, and I’m sure most of the countries don’t want your interference in their internal affairs. I care about those kids just as much as you do. But I don’t intend to be the whipping boy for something someone else did.

 
Flag Post

You feel sorry for me for caring for 7,000,000,000+ people and not 312,000,000? Do you think I care? I feel sorry for you being a conservative living in a small town and deluded from reality whilst discriminating homosexuals and probably women, amongst other social groups, and at the same time being arrogant about your love for a lack of empathy regarding the murder of 27 individuals, amongst other topics you fail to empathise with; love for discrimination, and never having any reliable proof to back up your misinformed, uneducated claims.

However, that is outside the question. When will you attack arguments and not people? Or is the concept of ad hominem still alien to you? Now that I attacked you like you always do to everyone else, can you attack arguments?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by >jhco50
Originally posted by donseptico:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Let me give you a couple of points to consider. First, schools are gun free zones in the states. Effectively, this gives someone wanting to kill large masses of people a place where they don’t have to worry about someone shooting back. The theater shooting also had a ban of firearms carriers in the theater. Every place these shootings happen, it is some type of gun free zone. Is it any wonder that these nut-jobs gravitate toward gun free zones?


Have any of you noticed that these shooters are all either in their late teens or early twenties? This makes me wonder if this has a meaning we should be searching for.


Yeah, how about not letting people who are ‘nut jobs’ or in their late teens/early twenties have access to firearms!


That could be one point to construe from your argument.


We already exclude those people from them. Obviously you don’t know our laws.

Obviously you can’t read…

1. A ‘nut job’ may not be able to buy a gun, but that’s not what I said.
2. Teens (aka young adults) and ‘Early 20’s’ are excluded from buying guns are they (again, not what I said but hey ho)?

(OK, as it’s so early/late I’ll rely on Wiki)

Buying from a dealer:

Provided that federal law and the laws of both the dealer’s and purchaser’s states and localities are complied with:

  1. An individual 21 years of age or older may acquire a handgun from a dealer federally licensed to sell firearms in the individual’s state of residence.
  1. An individual 18 years of age or older may purchase a rifle or shotgun from a federally licensed dealer in any state. However, the applicant may not purchase a pistol gripped long gun that does not have a shoulder stock until he or she is 21 years of age.

Buying from an individual:

In a private transaction, federal law prohibits the transfer or the sale of a handgun or ammunition, for use only in handguns, to individuals under 18 years of age. Although, there are certain exceptions in federal law, that if met, would allow an individual to transfer a handgun or ammunition, for use only in handguns, to someone under 18 years of age.

There is no federal law concerning minimum age for the transfer or sale of a firearm that is not defined as a handgun, such as rifles, semiautomatic rifles, short-barreled rifles, shotguns, short-barreled shotgun, machineguns, etc., for transactions that don’t involve federal firearms licensees.

Going by that Teens and Early 20’s can, indeed, buy firearms…

But, again, that’s not what I said… Do not let them have ACCESS to firearms…

An example or two: If you’re a householder, with children / young adults it’d be YOUR responsibility to ensure any firearms are securely stored so they can’t gain access to them (and take them to school and kill half a dozen people).

If you’re out of the house, it’s YOUR responsibility to ensure any firearms/ammunition are stored securely such that it’s nigh impossible for the ‘nut job’ intruder to break in and steal them… we all know that it’s impossible to make them completely secure from theft, but it can be made all but impossible.

Make permanently manned, secure community storage a requirement… you want to go shooting with your guns? Go collect them from the club and return them to the club…

Lots of things that could be done, nothing’s perfect we know but how many have to be killed (your own grandchildren perhaps) before you let go of the ‘from my cold dead hands’ mentality?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

You feel sorry for me for caring for 7,000,000,000+ people and not 312,000,000? Do you think I care? I feel sorry for you being a conservative living in a small town and deluded from reality whilst discriminating homosexuals and probably women, amongst other social groups, and at the same time being arrogant about your love for a lack of empathy regarding the murder of 27 individuals, amongst other topics you fail to empathise with; love for discrimination, and never having any reliable proof to back up your misinformed, uneducated claims.

However, that is outside the question. When will you attack arguments and not people? Or is the concept of ad hominem still alien to you? Now that I attacked you like you always do to everyone else, can you attack arguments?

You know, I don’t go to other countries and tell them how to live. It is none of my business how they chose to live or be governed. Obviously you aren’t reading my posts, just skimming them, so you are missing some important things. Then you come up with insults because I have some things I won’t accept, homosexuals, abortions, gun control, illegal immigration, etc. Why is it you think we Americans should give away our country, our freedoms, and support all of you 3rd world countries with taxpayer money? It is disconcerting and irritating to be constantly told how despicable America is and how you people in lesser countries claim to know everything about America. You know nothing about our culture, our people, only what you read on the internet. So don’t lecture me on what or what I don’t care about. You don’t know.

 
Flag Post

Actually, that is pretty close Donseptico. The laws you cited are basically correct. Not completely but close.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

You feel sorry for me for caring for 7,000,000,000+ people and not 312,000,000? Do you think I care? I feel sorry for you being a conservative living in a small town and deluded from reality whilst discriminating homosexuals and probably women, amongst other social groups, and at the same time being arrogant about your love for a lack of empathy regarding the murder of 27 individuals, amongst other topics you fail to empathise with; love for discrimination, and never having any reliable proof to back up your misinformed, uneducated claims.

However, that is outside the question. When will you attack arguments and not people? Or is the concept of ad hominem still alien to you? Now that I attacked you like you always do to everyone else, can you attack arguments?

You know, I don’t go to other countries and tell them how to live. It is not any of my business how they chose to live or be governed. Obviously you aren’t reading my posts, just skimming them, so you are missing some important things. Then you come up with insults because I have some things I won’t accept, homosexuals, abortions, gun control, illegal immigration, etc. Why is it you thing we Americans should give away our country, our freedoms, and support all of you 3rd world countries with taxpayer money? It is disconcerting and irritating to be constantly told how despicable America is and how you people in lesser countries claim to know everything about America. You know nothing about our culture, our people, only what you read on the internet. So don’t lecture me on what or what I don’t care about. You don’t know.

So I guess no ‘non-americans’ can have an opinion? Put forward suggestions that may (well, it’s possible) not have been considered before… make some americans think about things from a different perspective???

What about all the americans who are posting here with different views to yours? They’re not entitled to their opinion either, or to posit suggestions, etc.

Edit: Addendum – The very purpose of ‘discussion’ is two fold, to put forward and have challenged, often, opposing views. Many are willing, and have tried to consider your stated position, why are you so unwilling to accept there may be merit in other’s arguments?

 
Flag Post

Alright, well that’s good for you.

What you fail to see is that a comment on the internet is not an order. When someone criticises the United States’ policy on an issue on the internet, it does not involve you. They are not telling you to obey them. And for the love of God, they are not threatening you. This is not about you, unfortunately.

jhco, you are the epitome of American ignorance; New Zealand is not a third world country. I am in no shape or form even surprised at you believing it is. New Zealand beats America is many rankings, as do many countries. No, America is not the best country in the world, according to the UN, the OECD, or dozens of internationally-acclaimed publications’ reports daily.

Again, I have been to America. I have said this, but indubitably you have forgotten as a result of your narcissism.


Back on topic, gun control causes thousands of deaths in the United States. This includes per capita statistics, not merely quantity. The United States leads western countries, first world countries, in rankings about homicides, murders, etc. This should worry you, and patriotism and reluctance does not solve such an important issue.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

You feel sorry for me for caring for 7,000,000,000+ people and not 312,000,000? Do you think I care? I feel sorry for you being a conservative living in a small town and deluded from reality whilst discriminating homosexuals and probably women, amongst other social groups, and at the same time being arrogant about your love for a lack of empathy regarding the murder of 27 individuals, amongst other topics you fail to empathise with; love for discrimination, and never having any reliable proof to back up your misinformed, uneducated claims.

However, that is outside the question. When will you attack arguments and not people? Or is the concept of ad hominem still alien to you? Now that I attacked you like you always do to everyone else, can you attack arguments?

You know, I don’t go to other countries and tell them how to live. It is not any of my business how they chose to live or be governed. Obviously you aren’t reading my posts, just skimming them, so you are missing some important things. Then you come up with insults because I have some things I won’t accept, homosexuals, abortions, gun control, illegal immigration, etc. Why is it you thing we Americans should give away our country, our freedoms, and support all of you 3rd world countries with taxpayer money? It is disconcerting and irritating to be constantly told how despicable America is and how you people in lesser countries claim to know everything about America. You know nothing about our culture, our people, only what you read on the internet. So don’t lecture me on what or what I don’t care about. You don’t know.

So I guess no ‘non-americans’ can have an opinion? Put forward suggestions that may (well, it’s possible) not have been considered before… make some americans think about things from a different perspective???

What about all the americans who are posting here with different views to yours? They’re not entitled to their opinion either, or to posit suggestions, etc.

They can have an opinion, but they are insisting they know exactly how we should behave and what kind of laws we must have and then give me that blather about empathy. We are not his country and he is not expressing an opinion. He is demanding more or less and then insulting us for not following his argument He is not suggesting, he is telling us our form of government sucks because we don’t conform to his ideal. He forgets it is us who make the laws, not him or his country.

Yes, Americans are entitled, but that doesn’t mean I won’t fight them tooth and nail. You know, half of the American people are fed up with the other half. This is a fight just waiting to happen. The administration just keeps heaping more and more on the backs of the people and to be honest, I think part of the problem with all of these shooting was suggested by Softest, the stress being created. Not just on students, but the citizen. They are pressed into a corner and eventually, they will come out of that corner. This may be what is happening with not only the shootings, but the unheard of child abuse that is happening now. We have had several babies and children abused to death lately. This was rare before, but is becoming more common. Now I am partial to babies and small children and this really makes me angry.