Thoughts on gun control?

[ShadowDeity]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Canada

 

You were saying?

 

Also, are you aware the US history? 10th amendment? There's a reason for that.

I didn't say it never happened.  I'm saying it happens a ton more in the US rather than Canada.  What are you guys at now?  Didn't Obama just say it was like 49 this year?

[ShadowDeity]

Federal law. It is illegal to buy a firearm out of your home state. If you buy a gun online it has to be shipped to an FFL (Federal Firearms Licensed dealer) who has to do a 4473 (background check) before the transaction can be completed.

 

This is not directed solely at you but the amount of ignorance of the real firearms laws in this thread is astounding. 

 

Even still, nothing stops people from buying a gun in their home state, and shooting up a school in the next.

[Real_PhillBert]

Even still, nothing stops people from buying a gun in their home state, and shooting up a school in the next.

 

Wait, you are saying that laws dont stop criminals? Who knew? Lol.

[rcarteraz]

I didn't say it never happened.  I'm saying it happens a ton more in the US rather than Canada.  What are you guys at now?  Didn't Obama just say it was like 49 this year?

 

You did say "No school shootings" so I was pointing out that that statement isn't true. A more correct statement would be it hardly ever happens here. The biggest reason that shootings take place at locations like schools is because they are "gun-free" zones. Of course a wacko is going to go there. They are cowards. They aren't going to go somewhere where they have to deal with other people with guns. They are too scared for that.

[Thunderpup]

Well most of the ones I'm explaining why they are wrong. Like one said you can just go to your grocery store or something and buy a gun and walk out with it loaded. That just simply isn't true at all. The only thing close to a grocery store that sells guns that I can think of is Walmart and I don't think they even sell guns anymore. At least not at my location.

 

Around here (in VA) most walmarts sell ammo, but a few still sell firearms. In more rural locations you find there are more walmarts that do as well.

 

First off, the founding fathers didn't make these laws based on modern guns.  They were based on muskets and flint lock pistols.  The NRA is just filled with trigger happy morons.  However, I don't believe guns should be taken from the sane or responsible.  But, there does need to be limitations.

 

Muskets and flintlocks weren't the apex of firearms technology when the constitution was written.  Revolvers, breach loading rifles, semi-automatic (pucket gun) and rifled barrels to name a few were all in circulation and being used by the citizenry.  However armies usually lagged 1 or 2 generations in technology behind what common citizens owned because of the expense in outfitting large armies with the same standard rifle. Its a practice that continued through Vietnam unfortunately.

 

Also saying the "NRA is just filled with  morons" is as bad as saying "Norway is full of morons" considering the NRA has more members than Norway does people.

 

 

But if we compare USA to Europe, we will start to see that when people can more easily acquire such weapons, the more killings will happen.

 

IMHO, gun control is a thing in Europe, it isn't in America. Feel free to run around guns blazing in America, but I am happy that I am not part of that. Literally anyone could pull a gun out, while in Europe, even carrying a knife is (some places) not legal. 

 

 

I think you are clouding the laws of your own country with those of others in Europe. In a few cases obtaining firearms are about equal in difficulty in places like Switzerland and Slovenia as they are in the states, yet they have very low crime. Even lower than countries with stricter control.

 

Also to state the US doesn't have gun control is disingenuous as there are roughly 20,000 firearms related laws between the federal and state governments. Federal law sets the minimum standard, and all states have to abide by that.

 

My issue is that some states have laws against it and some don't.  But what stops someone from going into the next state, buying a gun, and shooting a school up in their home state.  You can't control guns like that.  The US gives too much power to individual states IMO.

 

 

 

As stated in my text above federal law sets a minimum bar in which ALL states have to abide by.  Federal law in 1994 established any person purchasing firearms from a licensed dealer MUST have a background check.  does not matter where that transaction occurs.

Any person who orders a firearm on the internet from another state cannot have that firearm shipped to them. Instead it must be shipped to a licensed dealer who will then conduct the required background check.

 

 

Yes, depends on the law.  I don't think the founding fathers imagined an AK47 or an M16 when they wrote it.  They wrote it about what they had not what we had.  I do think the first needs more clarification though since modern people don't understand how it works.

There is a dangerous flaw in the logic of this, and you aren't the only one to espouse it.

 

Saying 1 amendment in the bill of rights is no longer valid due to current technology fails to take into account what will happen to the other amendments that were written and passed at the same time.

Free speech was provided when such speech was done in public, in person, outside and not on the internet.

Freedom of religion was provided at a time when folks wanted to practice their preferred version of Christianity.

Freedom of the press was provided back when the media used printing presses and not online publications.

Protection from unlawful search and seizure was written when people had physical assets, and not virtual ones such as e-mails and online bank accounts.

 

The way our judiciary works once an amendment is effectively nullified on account of the technology of the day it would set a legal precedent for other amendments to be nullified too.

 

 

Lastly while it is true the founders probably never imagined the firearms we have today, though Ben Franklin may have to be honest, to say their intent was bound by technology is a bit absurd.  First they were very educated for their day, and many of them were military men.  A few were inventors or purveyors of new technology in general.

 

And I can guarantee that if you took a cross section of those founders I could have them understanding an AR-15 in 10 minutes.

 

Could you have them fully understanding the workings of a cell phone?

 

 

Even still, nothing stops people from buying a gun in their home state, and shooting up a school in the next.

proof?

[Calavera]

*orders popcorn*

 

One argument pro-gun people often use is the following:

 

If guns are taken away, criminals will be the only ones with guns and they'll have free game"

There's logic in this statement, but here's how it doesn't work in real life.

 

Let's say a criminal looking to rob a supermarket points a gun at the cashier, in America there's a good to fair chance that the guy with the white T-shirt and baseballcap has a gun in his pocket, him making a sudden move is a very big threat to the robber, leading to the possibility that he shoots the innocent man who happened to have no gun at all, just being stupid to move suddenly.

 

Here's the thing, here in the Netherlands (just let me finish before telling me they're vastly different countries from let's say the USA) if a criminal walks into a supermarket, nobody has a gun but the criminal. The cashiers just hand over the money and the criminal has no reason to shoot anyone, nobody is a threat. 

To you this sounds like something that'd only work in theory, but it doesn't. Here in the Netherlands the amounts of innocent civillians that have nothing to do with a shooting that are getting shot is incredibly low. Compare that to the USA where people shoot criminals out of self defence and or vengeance for breaking into their house.

 

Again, it works in almost any country that's culturally similar to the USA, so I see almost no reason why it wouldn't work.

Sure, the USA borders a very dangerous country what guns are concerned, but when you only have criminals owning guns, in almost any country so far they have no reason to shoot civillians and thus don't. It leads to a safer country.

[Calavera]

You have a link to this story? people swear that stuff never happens in aussie land.

 

 

 

 

Actually buying a bike is just a matter of having money and paying the nice lady/man at the register.

Buying a firearm requires you to be 21 years of age for hand guns, 18 for long guns, show two proofs of government issue I.D (one has to have a picture) and fill out an ATF form 4473.  Then your information is sent to the FBI where its run against their offenders database and they state whether you pass or fail.  

 

If that's what you guys go through to get a bike you should be pissed!

 

also when you look at just crimes involving firearms the US does outstrip most of Europe, but when you look at all violent crimes the picture isn't as you make it out to be.

 

For instance the UK has higher rates of violent crime per 100,000 residents than the US at least according to the home office. 

I blame people living closer together, huge amounts of middle-easterners (don't hate, first generation immigrants from that region tend to bring a tad more violence in than let's say people from Spain) and a few cities that are too big to keep crime-free. Not justifying it by the way, merely trying to find the reason for the violence.

[Calavera]

Have fun in your police state.

 

It's easy to bypass a modern security system, a gun is the most effective deterrent. Would you like to get shot? I sure wouldn't.

Whereas with a security system you pay upwards of $60 a month for something that can fail. How much is a gun? A glock 17 in most places is around $400, and you can use it for more than protection. I have fun shooting, what about you?

 

Now, I could still get a security system (it's always a good idea,) but if somebody breaks in without the system going off, what do I do? Call the police and wait until the robber is already gone with all my stuff and the police just show up and file a report? That doesn't sound effective.

 

Nah, I'd take out my $400 pistol and aim it at his face. He would immediately run, or he'd face being incapacitated. That doesn't sound fun. I wouldn't kill the guy, since that's just horrible in general, but if he's stealing my stuff what am I supposed to do? Let him get away?

I can't help but feel angry when reading the, in my eyes, bullshit you spew.

 

Throwing a bucket of guns into the hands of toddlers and asking them to get a note from their parents saying they are good kids and a few bucks to give them guns sure is fun, most toddlers will do nothing bad with it, some will shoot for sport, other'll shoot themselves or their siblings, and some will shoo away bullies, but overall you get more people killed than when you don't give them guns at all. Sure, the bully of the class will get the better of them, they'll go home crying, but in the end nobody got killed.

 

Mom will make sure the kid goes to school happy again tomorrow, the bully will get scolded by the teacher eventually anyway.

 

Read this again in an adult world, let me help you out.

Giving civillians the access to guns with a background check and some money will lead to lots of them feeling safe and having fun shooting animals or criminals, but in the end you'll get more people shot than when you just don't fucking give civillians any guns to begin with. Sure, criminals will fuck your day up once in a while, but at the end of the day they'll one day get shot by the police and or end up in prison. 

You might lose your wallet to them but that's what insurance is for. 

Civillians owning guns just doesn't work, it might do for some, but America is a prime example of how fucked up humans are and how incapable they are of being responsible adults.

 

You think you'd get a police state, if anything the USA is more of a police-state than any country in Europe, we're astonished how bossy your cops are, how little you are allowed to do, here we are allowed to curse at an officer to a certain degree, it gets the aggression out and leads to people not cropping up their hatred towards the police.

 

You'll hate me for what I just said, or no... perhaps I'm over-generalizing here, just because 95% of butt-hurt trigger-happy fellows got super angry at me that doesn't mean you'll be.

[Thunderpup]

For the original poster, and anyone else interested, here are some links to the federal regulations.  Depending on the angle you intend for your essay you may find avenues for improvement, or better enforcement, of these laws.

https://www.atf.gov/file/58201/download

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-06-30/html/98-17288.htm

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/tools-services-firearms-industry

 

 

 

 

 

If guns are taken away, criminals will be the only ones with guns and they'll have free game"

There's logic in this statement, but here's how it doesn't work in real life.

 

Let's say a criminal looking to rob a supermarket points a gun at the cashier, in America there's a good to fair chance that the guy with the white T-shirt and baseballcap has a gun in his pocket, him making a sudden move is a very big threat to the robber, leading to the possibility that he shoots the innocent man who happened to have no gun at all, just being stupid to move suddenly.

 

Compare that to the USA where people shoot criminals out of self defence and or vengeance for breaking into their house.

 

Again, it works in almost any country that's culturally similar to the USA, so I see almost no reason why it wouldn't work.

 

 

There are a few flaws in what you stated as it pertains to the U.S. and i'll try and provide specifics

 

First because folks who are unarmed don't get injured by complying with an armed attacker/robber in Europe simply because guns aren't as common does not equate that will be the case here.  In our capital, D.C, there was a long standing ban on firearms ownership.  Those who had firearms prior to the ban were allowed to keep them, but they had to be registered, unloaded, and kept disassembled in the home, and could not be used for self defense.  Effectively the common citizenry did not have firearms.

Yet homicides, and home invasions, sky rocketed after the ban went into effect despite having gone through a decade long decline in violet crimes just prior.

 

Second I've been to the Netherlands, as my Opa immigrated here during the 20s and I have family over there.  Culturally the Dutch, and Americans, are not the similiar.  There are similarities that do exist but those aren't as broad as one may think.  Furthermore there are a lot of laws in the Netherlands that even the most devoted "we should be more like Europe" supporters would not approve of here. Such as drinking age laws, tobacco purchase laws, drug use laws etc... 

[handymanshandle]

Personally I'd be in favor of taking more than just one approach in attempt to resolve gun violence.

Besides ensuring that gun thefts are better accounted for and a better way of ensuring that guns don't get into the wrong hands, also to have more programs to help people with mental health issues is something that needs to happen but to also attempt to remove the stigma around those with mental health issues.

 

Unfortunately the US probably couldn't try to do what Australia did with as much success in eliminating mass shootings.

 

Statistically most violent crime involving a firearm, that firearm happens to be stolen though in the case of some of the more recent shootings they've been obtained legally.

 

UCC and Aurora Theater both shooters legally owned their guns.

 

The Sandy Hook Shooter did not own the gun he used... His mom owned the gun.

[Jack.EXE]

 

Saying that being unarmed is safer is like saying I'll be safer drenched in pig meat so the wolves wont smell my scent.

 

Also, read my title.

[SansVarnic]

First off, the founding fathers didn't make these laws based on modern guns.  They were based on muskets and flint lock pistols.  The NRA is just filled with trigger happy morons.  However, I don't believe guns should be taken from the sane or responsible.  But, there does need to be limitations.

People tend to forget the NRA is US Government implemented program.

[SansVarnic]

Here we go again.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

But if we compare USA to Europe, we will start to see that when people can more easily acquire such weapons, the more killings will happen. I am guessing none of us has actually taken another person's life, but lets say you had one moment of weakness, it is so easy to pull a gun on someone if everyone has a gun, while if noone has a gun, it'll most likely be a fist fight with both parties alive.

 

IMHO, gun control is a thing in Europe, it isn't in America. Feel free to run around guns blazing in America, but I am happy that I am not part of that. Literally anyone could pull a gun out, while in Europe, even carrying a knife is (some places) not legal. 

 

In short: We all have one of those flip shit moments, it's easier to take a life in America because you most likely already pack a lethal weapon for "self-defense", while in Europe it'll end up with a fistfight and a beer, since it would require more than just a single short "flip shit" moment to kill people without a weapon

I am not sure where you are going with your remarks but the US is not the 1870's post civil war wild west period anymore.

[Guest]

I am writing an argument essay on gun control in my English class and I was wondering what some peoples ideas were on this, I already have my own and you will not change my thoughts on it, but I just want to see what you have to say. 

 

Should there be more gun control?

My opinion - No, there should not be, there will always be those crazy people who will shoot someone. We cannot stop these people from getting guns, if they want to do it, they will find a way, even with more gun control. What would keep them from stealing a gun, or buying one off of the black market? They are already committing a crime, so what would stop them from committing another one? 

 

Should there be safety training at gun ranges?

My opinion - Yes, I believes in order to shoot at a gun range you should have to take a safety class by them. The reason I support this is because when I lived in Texas, we just joined a gun range that didn't have a safety training, and when we were visiting it finding out if we wanted to join someone was shot. The person was shot because the person in the bay next to him had a hang fire (When you pull the trigger and the bullet does not go off) and didn't know what to do, so he looked at the gun, which meant pointing it to the left of him, towards another person, and the gun went off. The man had two kids and a wife, and that is why I support this. 

 

Should it be required that you lock up ALL guns inside your own house? 

My opinion - No. You have the right in your own home to keep your guns unlocked, do I think it's smart, no because if someone breaks into your house and commits a crime with that weapon you're in trouble. If someone does break into your house when you are home with your family, and they have a gun and yours are all locked up, you wont have time to get your gun, and if you do, the intruder might already have a gun to your family. 

 

 

I would go a lot more into depth on this, but I don't want to start a war on here. 

 

Any other things you want to talk about on guns? Post it too!

I'm sorry however I don't agree with most of what you've said. I find that Australia and especially Victoria's firearms laws are great. To own a firearm you must have the four following things:

 

• Police background check including ID verification similar to that of applying for citizenship or a passport
• A genuine reason for owing a firearm. You can't just say you like guns. If you select hunting then you must also produce your relevant hunting licenses or own land big enough to hunt on. You can get a license to hunt pests on crown land for $12. If you select sports shooting, you must be a part of a club for the entire period of your license. Eg. 3 or 5 years.
• Have attended a firearms safety course based on the classification of the firearm(s) that you want.
  • Category A/B - Longarm bolt, pump or lever action - hunting/sports shooting
  • Category C - Longarm semi auto less than 10 rounds/semi auto shotgun less than 5 rounds, tranq gun  - primary production, clay target shooting, professional hunting
  • Category D - Semi auto rim fire 10 round +, Semi auto centerfire, semi auto shotgun 5+ - Professional hunting, official purposes
  • Category E - automatic weapons, tear gas, mortars, RPG's, firearms designed to fire explosive projectiles - official use only.
  • Handgun license - must participate in a minimum number of competitions each year. I don't believe the weapon can be stored at home.
• A suitable storage facility. Safes under 150KG must be bolted to the building. Ammunition and firearms must be kept separate.

These laws are great - those who want to own firearms can - you can shoot at a range or go hunting in the bush with a suitable weapon. It prevents people going on massive shooting rampages. Anyone who believes that firearm controls like this do not work needs to think again. In 1996 35 people were killed and a further 23 wounded when someone went on a rampage at Port Arthur. A short while later politicians have introduced a huge restriction on firearms as before then our weapons laws were very much like the states. People didn't like it at the time however look at our history since - there have been no mass shootings in Australia since 1996.

 

Also have a watch of this:

[SansVarnic]

My issue is that some states have laws against it and some don't.  But what stops someone from going into the next state, buying a gun, and shooting a school up in their home state.  You can't control guns like that.  The US gives too much power to individual states IMO.

 

Pretty screwed up.... 

I'm happy to live in Canada.... no school shootings, etc.

If you where to look at how the US Government system works you would see that it is the States that give the power to the Federal Government not the other way around. This why the US is Republic/Federalist System not a Democracy like so many like to say incorrectly.

 

To answer your question most state require a purchasing permit or a current recognized carry permit to purchase a fire arm. Also we have the NICs program which is an instant background check that checks for flags every time a firearm is purchased and is a Federal Law that has been in place for a long time now.

So no, one cannot just simply cross state line buy a gun and go crazy with it.

[CalebTheEternal]

its a different world when you have to have people armed with guns around you to feel safe, 

 

I cant even imagine

I feel safe driving around. I can't carry a gun. I was just stating that my school has armed police and I feel safe, and I feel safe at work too because of my friends who carry. I am very comfortable around guns. 

 

Also @valdyrgramr I am a proud member of the NRA.

[CalebTheEternal]

I'm happy to live in Canada.... no school shootings, etc.

No school shootings in the last few years that I know of, but you did have this http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/americas/canada-ottawa-shooting/

 

Just sayin. Gun laws don't fix every problem, you still have shootings.

[NeoZeon]

I think I'll write a rather long post.

 

I take part in some online EDC forums (every day carry) and I'm pro gun control. You might guess from EDC, that guns are a big part of the EDC community, so I clash sometimes with some members when they bring it up.  All of the comments I'm about to make refer to guns in the united states, exclusive to the united states. 

 

1. Whatever regulation/deregulation happens, it must be uniform nationally. 

 

People want to leave many things for the states, but I don't believe this is the case. First off, gun ownership was addressed in the national constitution and therefore should be also addressed nationally. Second, because states are well connected (by roads ect), its very easy for guns to move from areas of lower regulation to higher regulation. To stop that, either laws must be uniform or there must be boarder checks between states. The latter is something I don't think anyone wants. I have personal experience with problem. My uncle was murdered by a drug addict with a long criminal history in palm springs, CA. His murder bought the handgun legally at a Cabelas in Nevada, ~5 hours drive from where my uncle was murdered. California's gun laws would have stopped the purchase of that gun, this is clear. In my opinion, Nevada has infringed on my uncles rights by allowing this to happen, and if we weren't so grief stricken at the time, we would have pursued lawsuit just like many high powered lawyers approached us to do. Obviously, these things are personal, but you can imagine that my uncle's murder isn't the only person bringing guns into California from other places in the united states.  This isn't a case for gun regulation, but more of an illustration on why states are not equip to handle gun laws to begin with. 

 

2.  "Guns do not kill people" is a logical fallacy 

 

The old adage "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is appealing, but I can actually mathematically (and therefore logically) debunk that statement. The actual statement should be "Guns kill people, and people kill people".  Why do I say that? Well lets run a few simulations, lets say person x is fighting people's  a b and c. In hand to hand combat, person's a b and c almost always win unless person x is much more skilled at hand to hand combat than the rest, so we have one death (person x) most of the time. Next simulations we give person x an knife. Since he has a knife, if he isn't very skilled, he can probably take out 1 person of the a b c trio, but the a b c trio should win most of the time all being equal, meaning that the outcomes of our simulations are between 1 and 3 deaths, weighted closer to 2 than 1 because person x almost always dies, but sometimes he takes out one of the trio. Occasionally person x is the only one who dies, and very rarely is he the one left. Now give person x a gun.  Its very easy for person X to kill all 3 people, but sometimes they overcome him, depending on the situation. Not only does the addition of the gun give person X the power to kill more people, but it actually lowers the variability in the results: the difference between the minimum and maximum amount of people who die in this scenario goes down because it happens faster. Beating someone to death with your hands or even a knife takes much longer than pulling a trigger, even if you miss the first shot.  The difference between the average people who die in and the the various simulations are the amount of people the gun actually kills.

 

Why is this thought experiment important? Because people's argument against gun regulation is that people will always kill people. That isn't true. Even if people always wanted to kill people, its much easier to stop someone from killing someone if they don't have a gun. In fact, the statement that people will always kill people divorces people from any responsibility, not the object. Logically, the object should assume responsibility since it is what enables the person to kill in the first place, and not the red hot human nature that people suggest is inescapable. 

 

I realize this argument is nuanced, and that there is an obvious counter argument.... why are a b c unarmed? Because the point of the thought experiment isn't to illustrate what happens when everyone has guns, which is far more complicated, with more random results and variability. Its just showing that how introducing guns at all into a system makes it more likely that people die. That increase in probability leads to more deaths over time. Those deaths over time are the sole responsibility of guns, therefore guns do kill people.

 

​3. The interpretation of the "right to bear arms" has been interpreted many ways by the supreme court since its creation 

 

Constitutional scholars and judges have debated the intent of the 2nd amendment for a long time. It's initial interpretation suggested that it was the regulated militia's right to be armed, and not the individual. It wasn't until 2008, with famous statements by Justice Thomas, where the right for individuals to own handguns was formally declared. This is why the phrase "we need to respect the constitution" isn't a valid argument against gun control. What respects the constitution, is of course, is realizing that it is not some rigid form of laws like the Ten Commandments (though, even religious law is not set in stone, see all religions over time chance their course), but a malleable masterpiece which is designed to catch up with the times. The most conservative argument, the favorite argument, is that since its in the constitution it should forever be law.  This is the same argument Ken Hamm used against Bill Nye in his debate climate change/ evolution ect, except replace constitution with bible. This again, is another logical fallacy. 

 

 

4. The debate over gun regulation in the United States was effectively over after Sandy Hook, the NRA just wants your money now

 

If we are ok with mass shootings at children's school, there is never a time we are going to place more regulations, the debate is over. Now the NRA just keep making straw man arguments to its supports so it can have more lobbying money. Please continue to give it to them, its being put to good use, obviously  :lol:

Edited October 14, 2015 by NeoZeon

[Tech_Dreamer]

We should also regulate manufacturing of cars & other vehicles to control road accidents.. *grabs popcorn*

 

 

 

#AnyOneCanLearnToDrive #ButNoOneShouldBeAllowedToDrive #orOwnaCar

[Thunderpup]

I think I'll write a rather long post.

 

I take part in some online EDC forums (every day carry) and I'm pro gun control. You might guess from EDC, that guns are a big part of the EDC community, so I clash sometimes with some members when they bring it up.  All of the comments I'm about to make refer to guns in the united states, exclusive to the united states. 

 

1. Whatever regulation/deregulation happens, it must be uniform nationally. 

 California's gun laws would have stopped the purchase of that gun, this is clear. 

 

​3. The interpretation of the "right to bear arms" has been interpreted many ways by the supreme court since its creation 

 

Constitutional scholars and judges have debated the intent of the 2nd amendment for a long time. It's initial interpretation suggested that it was the regulated militia's right to be armed, and not the individual. It wasn't until 2008, with famous statements by Justice Thomas, where the right for individuals to own handguns was formally declared.  

 

 

4. The debate over gun regulation in the United States was effectively over after Sandy Hook, the NRA just wants your money now

 

If we are ok with mass shootings at children's school, there is never a time we are going to place more regulations, the debate is over. Now the NRA just keep making straw man arguments to its supports so it can have more lobbying money. Please continue to give it to them, its being put to good use, obviously  :lol:

1.  Out of curiosity how would California's laws of prevented the sale of that firearm?

2.  That really doesn't hold water when you look at the actual writings of those who drafted and codified the amendment into the constitution. They didn't agree on much, but they did agree with the people's right to arms. 

 

2.1 " is that since its in the constitution its law. This again, is another logical fallacy."

Article VI of the constitution disagrees.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

Btw I'm atheist   

[NeoZeon]

1.  Out of curiosity how would California's laws of prevented the sale of that firearm?

 

Two ways: First, he was a convicted criminal (of several crimes). Second, he was (is) a drug addict. Both those violate a person's right to carry in California. 

 

 

 

2.  That really doesn't hold water when you look at the actual writings of those who drafted and codified the amendment into the constitution. They didn't agree on much, but they did agree with the people's right to arms. 

 

Again, the intention of the founding fathers doesn't matter. The constitution, by design is a dynamic document. The only thing that matters is our current interpretation of the text, officially, which is upheld by the supreme court. Anything else is a fallacious argument.  You may argue a new interpretation, but that doesn't mean it has to be rooted in what the founding fathers wanted. These two ideas (the found father's intent, and the constitution breath) are independent variables. 

 

 

 

2.1 " is that since its in the constitution its law. This again, is another logical fallacy."

Article VI of the constitution disagrees.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

I've edited my post to reflect what I actually meant, which is to emphasis the malleable nature of our law (and constitution).

 

 

 

 Btw I'm atheist   

 

Good for you?

[Thunderpup]

Two ways: First, he was a convicted criminal (of several crimes). Second, he was (is) a drug addict. Both those violate a person's right to carry in California. 

 

 

 

 

Again, the intention of the founding fathers doesn't matter. The constitution, by design is a dynamic document. The only thing that matters is our current interpretation of the text, officially, which is upheld by the supreme court. Anything else is a fallacious argument.  You may argue a new interpretation, but that doesn't mean it has to be rooted in what the founding fathers wanted. These two ideas (the found father's intent, and the constitution breath) are independent variables. 

 

 

 

 

I've edited my post to reflect what I actually meant, which is to emphasis the malleable nature of our law (and constitution).

 

 

 

 

Good for you?

1.  that does not explain how California's laws, specifically, would have precluded him from purchasing a firearm.  Cabelas is an FFL holder and is required under federal law to conduct an FBI background check on all purchasers.  If he was a convict, and a drug addict, that should of been reported to the FBI.  Although i do know that California law enforcement agencies often do not report crimes to the FBI in a timely manner, some taking more than 6 months.

 

2.  Your original statement was "It's initial interpretation suggested that it was the regulated militia's right to be armed, and not the individual." To which my rebuttal contradicted. Now you change your stance to the original interpretation "doesn't matter".  You cannot have it both ways. You cannot cite an interpretation and then state it does not matter once it is contradicted.  

Furthermore the original intent of the founders has come into play for deciding court decisions.  Jefferson's own views on religion and the government were used to establish the "separation of church and state" by the judiciary.

 

2.1  Basically your statement reads that any part of the constitution can be changed without it being actually being altered just by a change in the SCOTUS' interpretation.  Which essentially translates into the freedoms, and restrictions, enshrined in the document are subject to the whims of the judiciary.  Making the belief that the right to free speech, or to vote is a matter of law under the constitution is a "logical fallacy. "

[NeoZeon]

1.  that does not explain how California's laws, specifically, would have precluded him from purchasing a firearm.  Cabelas is an FFL holder and is required under federal law to conduct an FBI background check on all purchasers.  If he was a convict, and a drug addict, that should of been reported to the FBI.  Although i do know that California law enforcement agencies often do not report crimes to the FBI in a timely manner, some taking more than 6 months.

 

 Sure, but that doesn't stop them from actually acquiring the gun, depending on the state.  In California, my understanding is you purchase the gun, and at a later date you come back and pick it up after the background check is complete. In Nevada, the background check is done after, which negates the purpose of doing the check to begin with. Don't ask me why it works this way, I didn't write these laws, nor do I live in Nevada. 

 

 

2.  Your original statement was "It's initial interpretation suggested that it was the regulated militia's right to be armed, and not the individual." To which my rebuttal contradicted. Now you change your stance to the original interpretation "doesn't matter".  You cannot have it both ways. You cannot cite an interpretation and then state it does not matter once it is contradicted.  

Furthermore the original intent of the founders has come into play for deciding court decisions.  Jefferson's own views on religion and the government were used to establish the "separation of church and state" by the judiciary.

 

That is exactly my point, that it doesn't matter because it has changed, therefore the argument of what it was initially, in the past, or currently should have no bearing on what it SHOULD BE.  Please reread the entity of my statement. I wasn't citing its original interpretation as an argument for gun control, I was citing its original interpretation to show how the law has changed over time, despite there being no change in its language. 

 

 

2.1  Basically your statement reads that any part of the constitution can be changed without it being actually being altered just by a change in the SCOTUS' interpretation.  Which essentially translates into the freedoms, and restrictions, enshrined in the document are subject to the whims of the judiciary.  Making the belief that the right to free speech, or to vote is a matter of law under the constitution is a "logical fallacy. "

 

Please explain, because I'm not sure you know exactly what your saying. A fallacy is an unsound argument, not a mandated right by the constitution. The constitution does not have any fallacies in it. The arguments made on behalf of the constitution can be fallacious. But yes, the law does change by interpretation, citizens united is a famous example.  Interpretations expand and contract the breadth of constitutional law (or any law for that matter).  That is literally the point of our court system, and why we have judges. It is to make sure the law is interpreted and applied correctly. Obviously this changes depending on the judge, and since we have different judges over time,  the law changes. Also a judges beliefs might change over his/her lifetime, so that can in tern change the law. We have an appeals system, so that incase one interpretation of the law is false, we can get another. 

[SansVarnic]

This is not aimed at the OP as he is just asking for information and thoughts about gun control in general but aimed at the uninformed and misinformed.

 

Just to put into perspective here some of the arguments. No matter what, if say all guns where removed/banned/destroyed this will not reduce the amount of crime that exists it only removes that particular method of killings. Guns are the issue (as I have stated before in one of my other posts) currently only because they are readily available. If guns were not available such as they are we would be arguing about something else.

Columbine (as an example) shows us that more than just guns were used in the plot as the teens involved also made bombs but were unable to utilize them like they wanted but the original plan was to use the bombs in the killings and use the guns as backup if the bombs didn't work as planned. Guns are not the only means of crime use. 

 

Unfortunately this conversation has gone from opinion about gun control to USA vs the World on gun control and how US citizens are, I quote, "Infants" "crazed trigger happy idiots" and so on. I do not condone the use of such remarks and I won't condemn those who use them but I am not surprised by the misinformed but I am quite concerned that misconception about Americans here is outstandingly far-fetched. Before making such outlandish remarks about the laws and practices do the research first. First off the media in this country does not paint an accurate picture of what goes on in the US. So any argument containing references to those sources can automatically be dismissed.

The problem in the US (and this as un-biased as you will see) is not the issue on whether or not there is enough gun control, the real issue is there is to much control. As previously stated by another forum member there are over 20,000 laws about guns at the Federal level and this does not include state level laws, let that sink in. . . . There are so many laws that they cannot be properly enforced and the anti-gun parties want more laws. I ask how different ways can you write a law to enforce gun control? I can tell you, One. We have so many versions of the same laws that the laws we have cannot be enforced. 

The US has had a very successful program implemented several years ago called the NICs E-Check that is ran by the FBI. This program is used for every single gun sale that takes place. 

People say we need more back ground checks, Why? we have a background check already. 

Mentally unstable people should not own guns, They don't. 

"People should be assessed for mental illness,"  What and who is going to check 300 million people for mental illness? Oh wait we already do this when we see the Doctor for annual check ups.

Do we need background checks? Yes of course.

Do we need training to own a gun? At this time I would say yes, BUT if it was 1950 I would say No. Culturally speaking the world has declined in civility not progressed so yes training to understand responsibility and understanding of a dangerous weapon should be recommended. But them again if we had not lost our way culturally we would not have to even address this all a majority would be raised properly so the question would be mute. 

 

Currently the US has been undergoing a severe drop in civility due to the current Presidential administration having been encouraging civil strife and and breaking down the bonds between race. (this reminds me of a few other individuals from history, not US, that did the same thing). People that want to accuse the US for going through the period it is going thru should look up their past history of their own country. Remember the USA is younger than other countries and going though the same groping pains they did but at a faster pace. Shame, Shame. I am ashamed that such a group of people as intelligent as this should come down to the level of arguments displayed here. I understand that there are many that are young but still.....

 

Nobody can successfully accuse the US for being what it is any more than I can accuse your country of being what it is. As history teaches us each people/country/culture goes through a time of strife and it is repeated multiple times especially when that particular history is ignored. Those who want argue that Americans are gun toting idiots are foolish to state as such as we are going through a time that we have reached due to circumstances that brought us to this point just as did in your countries history. I can make a case about each European country and the mistakes that were made that led to not just WW1 but WW2 just 25+ years later. . . . SO yes I understand why certain countries have the laws they have because of what history has made of its people and character. DO not accuse the US for what it is as I can blame others countries for the wars and other things that the US has not had happen to it. Those that created the US drafted the Constitution based on their knowledge of history and the war that was fought against a tyrant King and his parliament (and by the way it wasn't necessarily the King they went to war over it was the Parliament, but the king did not help) 

 

@Windspeed36 (no disrespect intended) but your video does not add to your point. Even though it was supposed to be comedic... he did not make his argument well as the individual he chose to debate did not have a good head to speak on the topic (which I understand is the point because he making fun of those whom are strongly, blindly, pro-gun) but how many people here understood that?. The guest was obviously strongly biased and not a strong contender to counter argue. I cannot even take that guy for what he says and I am a member of the NRA, USCCA, USAR, etc. 

 

A good understanding of history and the laws of any country you live in is something all firearms owners should have and I can say that about 80% of citizens in the US that are legal owners have this, other countries have about the same. Most owners that do not go to a class before purchasing are like myself, either raised in a family where gun safety was taught a young age, military experience, or other. I will not attend a class nor will I ever as I was raised proper to respect such things and I have military experience that give me the confidence and know how but that is just me. For the rest, these are the one that make it to the headlines and are used to represent the majority though in truth they are a very small minority. There are idiots every where. Last time I looked the death rate in the Middle east is higher than any country (not at war) in the last 50 years consistently and I will even add in a few countries in Africa that almost annual religious/racial cleansing. The US is not the worlds threat on any, front especially guns. People have a strong tendency to think Americans are a lot like the fantasized hill billy type. Why? Because Americans are the scapegoats to the worlds issues because when something happens its the American they ask for help, then turn around blame them for starting the whole thing. Thanks but Americans cannot be both savior and instigator, it is one or the other.

 

Gun control is a waste of time as there more productive issues to address than this.

 

I can nullify any argument in this thread Pro or Anti - gun with common logic and reason. This argument cannot be won by either side.

 

To be realistic, I own a gun for self defense among other reasons but if it was 1980 I most likely would not but it is not 1980 anymore and there are plenty of reasons to utilize any option available to me to defend myself. Will I go crazy and shoot up a movie theater? Absolutely not. But what if say I contract something that messes with my head and I become violent what then?, what if I have an aneurysm and I go mental because if it? These are questions that cannot be answered because these are situations that happen and cause people to go ballistic and shoot something up and say what it gets missed because the firearm was purchased prior to the accident and then it happens. This has happened. No longer is the argument `he should have been stopped from buying the weapon because he was mentally unstable', umm /s no he wasn't at the time of the purchase.

 

But then again I guess I will be done with this thread as it has been done over repeatedly (oh wait did I already mention that history repeats itself) but I will wait and watch the thread to see where it goes for the time being. I don't know for sure if I will reply again but that will depend on the question or statement made really.

[skywake]

Well most of the ones I'm explaining why they are wrong. Like one said you can just go to your grocery store or something and buy a gun and walk out with it loaded. That just simply isn't true at all. The only thing close to a grocery store that sells guns that I can think of is Walmart and I don't think they even sell guns anymore. At least not at my location.

When I said that I was talking about what things were like in Australia before John Howard introduced legislation here. I wasn't talking about the US I was talking about what Australia did, why we did it and what the result was. What I actually said was this....

 

But lets just go back to the singular big event behind Australia's gun laws. The Port Arthur massacre was committed by a 28 year old with the mental capacity of an 11 year old. He saw an ad in the newspaper, brought a bunch of automatic weapons and killed 35 people. This isn't far removed from the sort of pattern you see in shootings anywhere in the world.