The implication that stricter gun control would also mean banning anything and everything that could potentially cause harm or that it would also logically result in government invasions of privacy. When people are buying cars for $50 and then going out of their way to drive them through schools and running over as many children as possible, we can talk about stricter regulations of cars.
The 2nd Amendment needs to go
- Thread starter BronzeHeart92
- Start date
The implication that stricter gun control would also mean banning anything and everything that could potentially cause harm or that it would also logically result in government invasions of privacy. When people are buying cars for $50 and then going out of their way to drive them through schools and running over as many children as possible, we can talk about stricter regulations of cars.
Arsenic
[div=font-size: 18px; font-family: 'Kaushan script
- 3,201
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Age 27
- In the skies
- Seen Apr 13, 2022
So, how about that rising gun crime rate in England. Impossible stuff must be fake news!
Melody
Banned
- 6,460
- Posts
- 19
- Years
- Age 35
- Cuddling those close to me
- Seen Mar 4, 2018
I have to make it very clear: The second Amendment represents a real and serious basic human right. A right which has helped to discourage violent crimes when excercised responsibly.
That being said; I am all for expanding due process of law to allow for government agencies to ban, restrict or hinder someone who may pose a legitimate threat to others from getting any kind of a truly lethal weapon.
Anyone being tried for, or convicted of, Violent or Gun related crimes should definitely not be able to *easily* get a gun. Background checks should be mandatory and anyone who can't vote, convicted felon, shouldn't be able to get guns
That being said; I am all for expanding due process of law to allow for government agencies to ban, restrict or hinder someone who may pose a legitimate threat to others from getting any kind of a truly lethal weapon.
Anyone being tried for, or convicted of, Violent or Gun related crimes should definitely not be able to *easily* get a gun. Background checks should be mandatory and anyone who can't vote, convicted felon, shouldn't be able to get guns
Last edited:
Yeah, there's been so many mass shootings in Engl - oh wait.
- 318
- Posts
- 6
- Years
- Age 31
- Finland
- Seen Apr 12, 2024
Twocows: They're not free to own the means to defend themselves, their family, and their property against violent criminals, for one.
Again, I would have been dead a long time ago if that was the case. Sure, violent criminal might exist but they should be thankfully rare and I sure don't remember encountering one at all. And the way you said it again gives me the impression that Europe should have something similar to the 2nd Amendment.
Again, I would have been dead a long time ago if that was the case. Sure, violent criminal might exist but they should be thankfully rare and I sure don't remember encountering one at all. And the way you said it again gives me the impression that Europe should have something similar to the 2nd Amendment.
Last edited:
- 3,509
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 30
- Seen Nov 5, 2017
It's a little bit sad when I see people so indoctrinated into owning guns that they genuinely believe the regular slaughter of innocents and children is just a fact of life if you want to be "free".
You're not free, sorry.
Source? I can talk about England all day.
You're not free, sorry.
Source? I can talk about England all day.
- 318
- Posts
- 6
- Years
- Age 31
- Finland
- Seen Apr 12, 2024
I agree with you completely. It's something that we can all take to heart, especially after that recent incident in Texas.
This isn't a straw man because it's what many people in this thread are actually arguing, including the original poster: that we should entirely ban guns and repeal the Second Amendment.
I am in support of stronger gun control, or at least more sane gun control. I agree with closing the gun show loophole and with most of Nah's suggestions a few posts back. I've said as much in the past, and if that's all you want, then I completely agree with you and we can basically end this here.
That literally happened last week in New York City. An individual rented a truck from Home Depot for a pittance and killed eight people and injured over a dozen more.
Howso? If I am attacked by an individual who has the intent to kill me, my chances of survival are a lot higher if I have the means to kill him or her first, which a firearm empowers me to do.
It is a lot less rare in urban areas in the United States. Violent crime gets significantly worse the further you go into the poorer urban areas, to the point where there are places in Detroit and other cities where if you come across a stop sign, you don't stop for fear of your life. Granted, there are a limited number of such places and if you're aware of them, you can avoid them, but that's not the point. Violent crime's a reality here and it's an assumption we have to consider when making political and legal decisions.
I wouldn't presume to know what's best for Europe because I don't live there and I am not familiar with the situation they face. I do think people should, generally speaking, have a right to own the means to defend themselves, but that could take a different form in Europe than it does here.
I'm not implying other people are incapable of thinking for themselves, so I would appreciate it if you could return the courtesy and keep the scope of your arguments to actual talking points.
I've already made my argument with respect to this. If your government told you that owning a car was too dangerous to society and that car sales were being banned because "the regular slaughter of innocents and children cannot just be a fact of life," would you go along without protest?
I'll make that determination for myself.
Last edited:
It's rarer than gun violence and apparently bares less casualties because the same week someone shot up a church and killed twenty-six people and injured several more. It's also already harder to obtain a vehicle than a gun.
- 318
- Posts
- 6
- Years
- Age 31
- Finland
- Seen Apr 12, 2024
Man, I'm not sure what's going on in Twocow's head... And once again Gimmepie does have a point. Cars can't kill as many people as guns. OK, I guess they can be effective from a psychological standpoint...
Last edited:
- 286
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 27
- Wasteland, baby!
- Seen Oct 3, 2020
Right? Like, I don't remember someone injuring almost six hundred people from his hotel suite with a car. Vehicles (and knives, before that gets brought up) also serve a practical in society purpose other than killing people/violence.
Hmm, I'm actually agreeing with you on something? I don't believe in taking away the Second Amendment but I do firmly believe in stricter gun control. At the very least, it needs to be enforced more effectively. In most cases, I feel we're not doing a good job enforcing the law.
My idea is for us to expand the Banned Guns/ Weapons list to include any Machine Gun, Sub-Machine Gun, Assault Rifle, or Fully-Automatic weapon. I could be wrong about this but the main killer in these past two mass shootings and likely most mass shootings to date fell into one of these categories. We can cut down on the risk by outright banning or at least limit who can have them to law enforcement, military, and perhaps those special licenses.
Okay, I'm not so sure on the last group I just mentioned. However, I feel we could allow something like that so long as they're given far more frequent evaluations, a closer scrutiny, and have to pass more tests just to get the license. This would include multiple psych tests from multiple psychologists. At the very least, the types of guns I listed should be among the hardest to obtain if they aren't already. Even if they already area, they should be made even harder to obtain, if not outright banned.
Guns like the AR family aren't really made to defend one's self. They're made to kill people. I lean closer towards outright banning them as I feel their only place is on the battlefield or in the hands of select members of SWAT Units.
Last edited:
- 318
- Posts
- 6
- Years
- Age 31
- Finland
- Seen Apr 12, 2024
Never going to happen. History shows that much.
Tell me, why should I trust my safety to an obscenely inefficient government? Response times for police can easily reach into fifteen minutes, and that's if you can call 9-11 at all. Why should I go hungry when there's ample wildlife to hunt? Why are people willing (and rightfully so) to state that terror attacks conducted by religious radicals don't represent the group as a whole, and that we shouldn't infringe religious freedom, but are unwilling to say the same when it comes to gun ownership?
- A poster on DeviantART
Do you agree what this guy says or not?
Tell me, why should I trust my safety to an obscenely inefficient government? Response times for police can easily reach into fifteen minutes, and that's if you can call 9-11 at all. Why should I go hungry when there's ample wildlife to hunt? Why are people willing (and rightfully so) to state that terror attacks conducted by religious radicals don't represent the group as a whole, and that we shouldn't infringe religious freedom, but are unwilling to say the same when it comes to gun ownership?
- A poster on DeviantART
Do you agree what this guy says or not?
Believing in a certain god doesn't provide you with a ready-made bomb. A nation believing in unrestricted gun control does result in thousands of untrained, potentially dangerous civilians having access to a deadly weapon.
- 1,136
- Posts
- 7
- Years
- Age 29
- The Subway
- Seen Jun 18, 2020
The misinformation in this thread is staggering beyond belief. It saddens me that the vast majority of you have never owned a firearm, fired one or even seen one asides from a governmental employee owning one i.e. a cop.
Let's begin with the basics.
1) Owning fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986 is illegal except under strict license. This is enforced by the federal government, not state law. Some states have placed laws furthering the federal ban by adding that you cannot purchase a 'grandfathered' weapon.
Further more, to obtain such a weapon LEGALLY you must go through a federal background check whixh also reaches the ATF if I recall correctly. The cheapest I have seen these legal fully automatic weapons go for is clocked at six figures. i.e. you most likely need to sell your house, your car and several of your worldly possessions in order to obtain a legal machinegun.
Machine gun for dummies: If the gun can fire more than one bullet per press of the trigger it is classified as a machinegun and you most likely cannot own it legally. The M16 is a machinegun. The AR-15 is not. I like to use car chassis as examples. A 1970 Trans Am does not make it a Camero.
You really need to do more digging into these laws because to someone educated you appear arrogant and are lumped in with the know nothing politicians. You don't want that.
2) Otherwise modifying a firearm to enable it to fire like or as a machine gun is illegal. There have been several patented items that have been banned for sale in the US due to this.
A bump stock doesn't enable a rifle to fire fully automatic, but 'like' a machinegun. You can achieve the same effect with your belt loop or a band of rubber. This isn't new, it's a technique that people have developed or learnt for fun or other. Do not interpret 'fun' as shooting people, that is why I put 'other'. I don't condone shooting people unless warranted i.e. a bank robber.
3) This is perhaps the most obvious to me but people really seem to forget. . .
Drugs. Guns. They both often go together and have a hot, dirty relationship. The US makes up about less than or equal to 5% of the entire global population but consume the vast majority of the globe's controlled substances. Here's a report on addiction. The US also consumes at or above 80% of the world's opioids.
This isn't new. The US uses more drugs than anyone else and with drugs, come gangs and with gangs come guns. They can't exactly call the police when they get ripped off, now can rhey?
Because of this fact it isn't difficult to see why there is a large problem in this field. The US has roughly 33,000 ACTIVE gangs at last cound by the FBI. The US simply has more criminals to deal with on a regular basis than say, Finland.
4) Gun related deaths. Gun related deaths also includes acts of suicide. Several media personalities like to omit this fact. This tactic is usually used as a smoke screen to clamour over how many people are killed each year wirh guns. Suicides, in my opinion, shouldn't count as such and should instead be added to the traditional suicide statistical analysis i.e. X amount of suicides with drugs, hangings, etc.
80% of the US gun related homicides are gang related. Should I need to explain why gun control wouldn't work in this scenario? Perhaps we should just cut out the middle man and just make murder against the law? Oh. . . wait. . .
4) Defensive gun use. Guns are used to save far more lives than they take in the US. Defensive gun use, or DGU, is roughly 70,000 to 80,000 based on the most conservative estimates, but can range from 750,000 to 2.1M by most institutions. DGU is a result in which killing, disabling, brandishing or scaring off an attacker preserves the would be victim's person(s) or property.
There were 33,000 gun deaths in the US in 2013.
Keep in mind: Suicides are included in this. 80% of all gun related homicides are gang or drug related.
Food for thought.
A question: are you against the police killing innocent or unarmed victims? If so then why do you want them to be the only people with guns?
Also, the 2nd Amendment applies to deck guns (cannons) so that's a thing. This fact basically negates the 'only muskets' argument.
The 2nd amendment is designed to enable you to defend yourself and your home. The Police are not obligated to save your life.
If you live in a country that isn't the US, where crime is minimal, good for you, but if you don't live here in the US please, with all sincerity: shut the fuck up, you don't live here.
I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate one such as myself impressing our rule of law on your country, like your strict food safety laws (insert very sarcastic *ugh* of disgust here).
We've had the 2nd Amendment for over 200 years and guess what? Still kickin'.
Let's begin with the basics.
1) Owning fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986 is illegal except under strict license. This is enforced by the federal government, not state law. Some states have placed laws furthering the federal ban by adding that you cannot purchase a 'grandfathered' weapon.
Further more, to obtain such a weapon LEGALLY you must go through a federal background check whixh also reaches the ATF if I recall correctly. The cheapest I have seen these legal fully automatic weapons go for is clocked at six figures. i.e. you most likely need to sell your house, your car and several of your worldly possessions in order to obtain a legal machinegun.
Machine gun for dummies: If the gun can fire more than one bullet per press of the trigger it is classified as a machinegun and you most likely cannot own it legally. The M16 is a machinegun. The AR-15 is not. I like to use car chassis as examples. A 1970 Trans Am does not make it a Camero.
You really need to do more digging into these laws because to someone educated you appear arrogant and are lumped in with the know nothing politicians. You don't want that.
2) Otherwise modifying a firearm to enable it to fire like or as a machine gun is illegal. There have been several patented items that have been banned for sale in the US due to this.
A bump stock doesn't enable a rifle to fire fully automatic, but 'like' a machinegun. You can achieve the same effect with your belt loop or a band of rubber. This isn't new, it's a technique that people have developed or learnt for fun or other. Do not interpret 'fun' as shooting people, that is why I put 'other'. I don't condone shooting people unless warranted i.e. a bank robber.
3) This is perhaps the most obvious to me but people really seem to forget. . .
Drugs. Guns. They both often go together and have a hot, dirty relationship. The US makes up about less than or equal to 5% of the entire global population but consume the vast majority of the globe's controlled substances. Here's a report on addiction. The US also consumes at or above 80% of the world's opioids.
This isn't new. The US uses more drugs than anyone else and with drugs, come gangs and with gangs come guns. They can't exactly call the police when they get ripped off, now can rhey?
Because of this fact it isn't difficult to see why there is a large problem in this field. The US has roughly 33,000 ACTIVE gangs at last cound by the FBI. The US simply has more criminals to deal with on a regular basis than say, Finland.
4) Gun related deaths. Gun related deaths also includes acts of suicide. Several media personalities like to omit this fact. This tactic is usually used as a smoke screen to clamour over how many people are killed each year wirh guns. Suicides, in my opinion, shouldn't count as such and should instead be added to the traditional suicide statistical analysis i.e. X amount of suicides with drugs, hangings, etc.
80% of the US gun related homicides are gang related. Should I need to explain why gun control wouldn't work in this scenario? Perhaps we should just cut out the middle man and just make murder against the law? Oh. . . wait. . .
4) Defensive gun use. Guns are used to save far more lives than they take in the US. Defensive gun use, or DGU, is roughly 70,000 to 80,000 based on the most conservative estimates, but can range from 750,000 to 2.1M by most institutions. DGU is a result in which killing, disabling, brandishing or scaring off an attacker preserves the would be victim's person(s) or property.
There were 33,000 gun deaths in the US in 2013.
Keep in mind: Suicides are included in this. 80% of all gun related homicides are gang or drug related.
Food for thought.
A question: are you against the police killing innocent or unarmed victims? If so then why do you want them to be the only people with guns?
Also, the 2nd Amendment applies to deck guns (cannons) so that's a thing. This fact basically negates the 'only muskets' argument.
The 2nd amendment is designed to enable you to defend yourself and your home. The Police are not obligated to save your life.
If you live in a country that isn't the US, where crime is minimal, good for you, but if you don't live here in the US please, with all sincerity: shut the fuck up, you don't live here.
I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate one such as myself impressing our rule of law on your country, like your strict food safety laws (insert very sarcastic *ugh* of disgust here).
We've had the 2nd Amendment for over 200 years and guess what? Still kickin'.
Cool! :) Now I think it's important for the US to do the same with semi-automatic weapons. Ideally something can happen with Bill H.R.4269 getting passed. Not going to hold my breath though.
I think this is fair. It's very easy for news sources to misrepresent statistics without looking at the bigger picture -- Do you have some concerning to both suicide and gun related deaths?
Per... year? Per jurisdiction? What are the specifics? Where is the citation?
You haven't shown where you found this number. How am I supposed to account for the methodology of the people who made the estimate? I can't just blindly take your word for it.
I'm going to be honest and say I made this post partly to spite you considering how rude this is.
The reality is that we live in a global marketplace and economy. We as consumers (especially so with the internet) have access to global news on the regular, so it's only natural for us to talk about what we see. When we hear about mass shootings in the US we are going to want to talk about it, and propose solutions, despite whatever nationality we may be.
In the context of this forum, the thread is open and anybody is able to respond as long as they follow the rules. You may not have to really respect their opinion since they don't live in the States, but to be honest dude, if you don't want Non-Americans chiming in on this then this probably isn't the place (or honestly) a discussion you should be having.
- 318
- Posts
- 6
- Years
- Age 31
- Finland
- Seen Apr 12, 2024
Yeah, you have to accept that there indeed other people, other cultures than yours and yes, we do have the right to complain about your 'right' to keep and bear arms, especially if said 'rights' leads to mass shooting incidents such as the one in a church a few days ago. Also, thank you for your contribution, Star-Lord. :)
Now let's imagine an alternate world. One where you haven't had the second amendment for two centuries and most of those awful mass shootings never happened. It's sure is good you have it though!
- 10,769
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
I don't get how you differentiate between "fully automatic" and "like fully automatic." If the end result is that a person can legally circumvent the restrictions on automatic weapons and can legally own a weapon that is as quick as an automatic weapon then what is the real difference outside of a technical one? The point in restricting automatic weapons is about how there's no real good justification for an average person to have one and that they're incredibly dangerous. To me this feels like a semantics argument without much merit.
I'm open to an explanation though.
Preventing suicides is something we should be trying to do, too. Their deaths are just as awful as those who are murdered. Theoretically speaking, if gun control only resulted in preventing suicides and not a single homicide then that's a pretty strong argument for it. I hope you are not implying that because gun violence statistics can include suicides that the number of deaths isn't "as bad" because of it.
Yes, please explain. Because, in America for instance, states with more gun control broadly see less gun violence compared to states with laxer gun control.
Food for thought:
"FBI did a very intensive study of 160 mass shootings over the period from 2000 to 2013. And what they found was that over that period, in the 160 cases, there was only one incidence of a private citizen who was not security personnel or a police officer who effectively intervened in the mass shooting, and that individual was an active duty Marine. On the other hand, 22 unarmed citizens intervened to stop those mass shootings, typically when the individual was reloading. And so it gives you a sense of the relative effectiveness of relying on someone with a gun to intervene in an active shooting scenario."
[source]
Is there something specific you would like me to elaborate on? I've explained my position as best as I can, if there's something you don't understand I can try and make it clearer.
OK, so what I'm trying to get at here is that all freedoms have a cost, and frequently that cost includes the loss of lives. Vehicle ownership was an example of that; I'm not trying to say vehicles are as destructive or more destructive than firearms (though when loaded with explosives as some terrorists do, they can certainly be very deadly), I'm trying to say that vehicles are an example of a freedom that we think is important enough to justify the cost in lives associated with it. Another example might include the right to a fair trial; that right probably resulted in a lot of criminals going free and possibly harming or killing even more innocent people, but it has also protected the lives of many people who have been falsely accused, and moreover, it prevents (or at least significantly impedes) bad actors from abusing governmental authority to imprison people they don't like.
Restricting freedoms is a dangerous game to play. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to argue to restrict, say, the right not to self-incriminate, but this is one of our most important freedoms and is something that is absolutely essential to a free society. The same goes for allowing a free, unregulated press or allowing free expression; there are legitimate arguments against these, but they're a core part of a free society. I could go on for a few more paragraphs as to why, but I think you understand my point without me doing so. My opinion is that if you're going to talk about restricting a freedom, you don't just need a valid reason to do it, you need an overwhelming reason that completely eclipses any reasonable benefit.
With respect to the right to own firearms, I think there are distinct and significant advantages to allowing people to possess them. I do think they should be regulated to some degree, and I think that if our current system was fixed up a bit, we'd significantly cut down on the abuse of this particular freedom. But I don't agree with people saying we need to get rid of the freedom altogether. I don't think the reasons to restrict this freedom even manage to win out against the reasons not to do so, let alone eclipse them entirely.
Separately from all of this, there's also the question of efficacy; would it even be possible to successfully enact such a ban and effectively confiscate peoples' weapons, or would it end up like prohibition or worse? That's a separate question, though.