The 2nd Amendment needs to go

[Kanzler]

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.

Strip it from the Bill of Rights imo, it wouldn't necessarily eliminate the freedom, but it would improve the ability to regulate it better. Obviously a middle ground can be reached, as in every other country that allows a reasonable regulation of arms. Getting bogged down in the details is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[twocows]

Strip it from the Bill of Rights imo, it wouldn't necessarily eliminate the freedom, but it would improve the ability to regulate it better. Obviously a middle ground can be reached, as in every other country that allows a reasonable regulation of arms. Getting bogged down in the details is missing the forest for the trees.

I don't think we need to go that far. I think our current system would work if we fixed some of the well-known ways people get around it. It's just that there are certain advocacy groups out there like the NRA who freak out at any talk of changing the law as it relates to guns. I don't agree with that.

 

[Kanzler]

I don't think we need to go that far. I think our current system would work if we fixed some of the well-known ways people get around it. It's just that there are certain advocacy groups out there like the NRA who freak out at any talk of changing the law as it relates to guns. I don't agree with that.

I feel like part of the reason change is so slow is that you can take any possible restriction and call it unconstitutional. Although I do agree that a lot of the slowdown occurs before the Supreme Court gets to make a decision on constitutionality (looking at the gun lobby), there is still probably a chilling effect on any potential legislation because of a possible constitutional challenge at a legislative level but also a grassroots level. I feel that people get hung up over the fact that it's an amendment right, and if not for that I think the population would be a lot more reasonable about the risks of too much gun freedom.

 

[Sektor]

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]

Suicides can be helped, perhaps, but not in the way you're thinking. Here, what if I told you you could no longer eat candy because children choke on candy and therefore candy if now outlawed? Sound ridiculous? Taking away a right of law because of the few is wrong in my opinion.

Most women take pills and most men either hang or shoot themselves. Personally I'd rather die instantly than choke to death slowly.

Regardless, if you take away all tools of suicide you're really no better than a dictatorship. People will commit suicide whether you want them too or not or whether or not you suspect it. It's a sad fact that you'll eventually come to terms with.

Also, no, I do not view suicide as tragic as murder. Sorry. A life ended voluntarily is not the same as someone getting killed for some money or other disagreement. There are ways to prevent suicide but there are no known ways to prevent homicide, remember that.

The FBI does not have a current definition they use to define a 'mass shooting' so I am loathe to accept a study from the 'FBI' when they themselves debate on what counts as a mass shooting. I've seen cases where 'mass shooting' means two or more, but for the most part it tends to be four or more persons. The circumstances must be taken into accoint as well such as motive. Is it a bank robbery? Familial homicide? I don't consider a bank robbery to be a mass shooting regardless how many people are shot. The motive is different in this example.

However, if I do grant leeway for this study I would ask you to consider the fact that the vast majority of these 'mass shootings' take place in gun free zones or otherwise controlled areas where guns are prohibited on the premises. The FBI has they're own database for future reference if you ever need to use them as a direct source.

States with more gun control see less gun crime: False.

New York, California and Illinois. Please take these three as an example. Illinois has arguably the strictest gun control laws side from California and yet has the highest homicide rate when correlated with firearms. California has roughly 104 laws dictating ownership of fireamrs while Newyork has 75 and Illinois has 64. Just because Illinois has less laws dods not mean that they aren't as strict if not more so. It all depends on the verbage and word of law.

Using gun laws to negate gun crime doesn't work. It doesn't matter if you have 4 (AK) laws or 104 (CA) criminals will use firearms regardless. Keep in mind that your statement does not take population into account, and even so we need only look at criminality and drug trafficking to know why they see such amounts of homicides. Texas, for example, borders Mexico and guess what comes across the border every year? If you guessed Mexicans you'd be wrong. . . well, right I guess, but drugs. Cartels and guns go hand in hand. Florida has this problem as well.

Also, California has the most amount of gang members than any other state in the union. The Bloods and the Crips alone collectively hold an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 active members. Several of these individuals are felons. Felonius individuals cannot possess or otherwise own firearms:

Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is banned by federal law from ever possessing ?any firearm or ammunition.? Specifically a person ?convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year? cannot possess any firearm in any location. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for firearm possession by a felon is up to 10 years in prison, unless said individual has their rights restored by the convicting state.

That being said, any and all gun control laws do not apply to felonious individuals. If they were law abiding citizens then they wouldn't be felons.

Fully Automatic: Firearm produced with all the necessary components to fire full auto.

Like fully automatic: otherwise modified in order to achieve fully automatic fire.

Semi-Automatic: One press of the trigger fires one round. The opposite of automatic.

There are some firearms that are extremely difficult to modify full-auto, such as shotguns and revolvers.

The US' homicide rate has been stedily declining since the early 90's, mass shootings are responsible for less than 1% of gun related homicides wothin the US, and criminals don't follow the laws.

What everyone here needs to keep in mind is that criminals commit the vast majority of gun related homicides, often associated with drugs. You can melt down all the legal guns you want and 'surprise-surprise' MS-13 didn't get the memo.

The 2nd amendment is hardwired into our bill of rights. Challenging this right, which is unalienable, calls into question the right to free speech which people are now arguing against with 'hate speech'. It isn't a stretch because it has happened before in history and then we fought a war with those guys and they lost 70 odd years ago.

We can go back and forth and people can make all the naive comments they like. They can claim they have the right to dictate law to a country they know next to nothing about and they can bleed their hearts dry crying about the poor, unfortunate souls but at the end of the day what have they said?

I have not seen a single decent argument that even begins to tackle the logistics for implementing the repeal of the 2nd.

Who is going to foot the bill? Taxpayers? The same taxpayers that don't want to hand over their guns?

Who is going to take the guns away? Is there going to be a buy-back like Australia? If so, then you've already defeated yourself in wanting to get rid of guns, because people won't turn them in for $500.

Would you tax the guns? How much? How often? What happens if they don't pay?

You cause more problems here by claiming rightful, law abiding owners are going to break the law. If you sincerley believe that the majority of gun crime is commited by legal firearms there really is nothing left for me to say.

You'll most likely forever continue to spout your mouth off at every tragedy but do nothing about it like the vast majority of those that do. If you have no plan, no structure then you will lose, always. There is no incentive to listen to you or the politicians that claim they know what's best for the citizens despite them lying though their teeth to get you to change your mind. They don't matter and only want to garner support for future campaigns.

More people are murdered with handguns than long rifles if you had any doubt about that. . .

If you ever wanted to know, if you ever had an open mind or half a thought to treat both sides fairly, which most of you are not despite your claiming to do so, you would do your own research. The gun show loophole doesn't exist and it's harder to obtain a gun than a car.

Why? Because you need a license to own a firearm. You will get a background check by law, otherwise the gunstore will receive a massive fine and lose their license and potentially receive jail time depending.

Quit refusing to do research into these laws. You do this and all it makes you is a jackass.

Harsh? Maybe. But really, grow up, grow some balls and quit listening to dorks like myself and do your own research in to actual laws. Not Fox news, CNN, MSNBC or whatever else you may or may not watch. The law and facts are what decide the outcome of whether or not (if you have a plan) your plan can be implemented.

If you really have no clue how guns work, I really don't want to talk to you about the law. Just the way it works. You've come from the kiddie table with your crayons and big beautiful ideas only to get a pat on the head by mom and get scowled at by grandpa who thinks you're a froot loop.

In order to change the law, you must know the law. If you are unwilling to learn the law you will be ignored by those that are most critical in changing it. I should not have to explain the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic or single and dual action.

If you don't know these terms by the way, congratulations: you have just been denied gun ownership. Yes. That's right. There's a test.

One last thing, the shooter of the Church in Texas was convicted of domestic abuse. Guess what?

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often called "the Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104?208, 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(9), is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ).

Which makes him owning guns illegal and against the law already.

Really, the thing you must ask yourself is how the hell you're going to convince me. A USMC (ret.) gun owner. I assure you, your task will not be easy. There are millions of gun owners like me who knows their shit and their local laws.

Attempting to waddle into a debate blindfolded without facts in hand will see you politely escorted to the proverbial door of thought because if you can't even begin to put forth a decent argument as to why legal, law abiding citizens that haven't broken any laws whatsoever can't own a rifle, handgun or shotgun to defend their home, hunt or protect their persons you will never be able to have the court systems rule in your favor.

This is a Republic and as such you need to have at least 2/3 to even begin the process of tabeling this idea. That is the reality. There isn't a big debate about this. Change my mind. If you manage to do that, maybe. Maybe.

However, if I have to explain to you how a gun works or how the law works, you've lost. Judges don't need to sit and listen to you drivvel on about laws they already know of and they have no need or want to waste time explaining them to you.

I am part of the group you need to convince. You need data. You need proof. As it is, you are the challenging party so I really don't have to justify shit to any of you. It's your job, since you've proudly accepted the feel good pats on the back, to come up with the factual data needed to change laws and remove entire sections from the Bill of (unalienable) Rights. If you cannot or won't do this, all you're really looking for are brownie points and to be reaffirmed by people that think like you.

Your feelings don't impress nor move people to change laws. The laws will not change because 'Finland' or 'Britain' or 'Canada' this and that. These and other countries have no business moulding our laws because those countries . . . don't live here. Their crime isn't our crime and viceversa. Work within the confines of the US legal systems. If you refuse to atrempt this.

I understand. But just note that you truly don't care. You say you do but you really don't. You like to look at the pretty pictures and 'take the high road'.

This is a general statement and directed at those that know nothing, that do nothing and just feel and bark orders at others about what we should do about it without lifting a finger to help.

 

[gimmepie]

Suicides can be helped, perhaps, but not in the way you're thinking. Here, what if I told you you could no longer eat candy because children choke on candy and therefore candy if now outlawed? Sound ridiculous? Taking away a right of law because of the few is wrong in my opinion.

I would say the same thing I said to twocows. That sure is a nice strawman you've got there.

Most women take pills and most men either hang or shoot themselves. Personally I'd rather die instantly than choke to death slowly.

There's a difference between pills and guns. Pills are designed to actually have a positive impact by treating pain and illness. Guns are designed solely for the purpose of killing things.

Regardless, if you take away all tools of suicide you're really no better than a dictatorship. People will commit suicide whether you want them too or not or whether or not you suspect it. It's a sad fact that you'll eventually come to terms with.

So... because some people will find a way anyway, we shouldn't do something to lessen the alarming number of suicides? Also, please don't talk down to people like you're coming from some sort of higher place of maturity or information. Quite a lot of people will never come to terms with the enormous number of suicides in modern society because it's a terrible thing.

Also, no, I do not view suicide as tragic as murder. Sorry. A life ended voluntarily is not the same as someone getting killed for some money or other disagreement. There are ways to prevent suicide but there are no known ways to prevent homicide, remember that.

I dunno but, making it harder to access a gun would probably help prevent murders. You know, like it does in just about every other first world nation.

The FBI does not have a current definition they use to define a 'mass shooting' so I am loathe to accept a study from the 'FBI' when they themselves debate on what counts as a mass shooting. I've seen cases where 'mass shooting' means two or more, but for the most part it tends to be four or more persons. The circumstances must be taken into accoint as well such as motive. Is it a bank robbery? Familial homicide? I don't consider a bank robbery to be a mass shooting regardless how many people are shot. The motive is different in this example.

Most studies seem to use four injuries or fatalities as the threshold for a mass shooting from the studies I've seen although there indeed isn't a universally recognised definition at this time. The circumstances are irrelevant though, you don't get to pick and choose facts based upon your sensibilities. Lots of people getting shot is lots of people getting shot. Motive has nothing to do with it.

However, if I do grant leeway for this study I would ask you to consider the fact that the vast majority of these 'mass shootings' take place in gun free zones or otherwise controlled areas where guns are prohibited on the premises. The FBI has they're own database for future reference if you ever need to use them as a direct source.

Firstly, there's no leeway to be given, you just don't like that the study goes against your point of view. Secondly, the existence of gun free zones does nothing to stop people easily obtaining firearms, that is the problem. How easy it is to get a gun. Not where guns are allowed.

States with more gun control see less gun crime: False.

New York, California and Illinois. Please take these three as an example. Illinois has arguably the strictest gun control laws side from California and yet has the highest homicide rate when correlated with firearms. California has roughly 104 laws dictating ownership of fireamrs while Newyork has 75 and Illinois has 64. Just because Illinois has less laws dods not mean that they aren't as strict if not more so. It all depends on the verbage and word of law.

I'd like to see sources from both of you on this one.

Using gun laws to negate gun crime doesn't work. It doesn't matter if you have 4 (AK) laws or 104 (CA) criminals will use firearms regardless. Keep in mind that your statement does not take population into account, and even so we need only look at criminality and drug trafficking to know why they see such amounts of homicides. Texas, for example, borders Mexico and guess what comes across the border every year? If you guessed Mexicans you'd be wrong. . . well, right I guess, but drugs. Cartels and guns go hand in hand. Florida has this problem as well.

Gun laws seem to be working pretty damn well... literally everywhere else that has them. Including places like here and the UK that are culturally very similar to the US. As for population, I debunked that argument already, I'm not going to do it again.

Also, California has the most amount of gang members than any other state in the union. The Bloods and the Crips alone collectively hold an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 active members. Several of these individuals are felons. Felonius individuals cannot possess or otherwise own firearms:

The gangs aren't making their own guns. The guns are originally bought legally and are then either sold or given away to those who cannot legally obtain them or who are trying to go under the radar. A common tactic is having an accomplice buy a gun then report it stolen before you go and shoot someone. If it was harder to obtain a gun legally, this would be less of a problem.

Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is banned by federal law from ever possessing ?any firearm or ammunition.? Specifically a person ?convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year? cannot possess any firearm in any location. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for firearm possession by a felon is up to 10 years in prison, unless said individual has their rights restored by the convicting state.

Already explained this.

That being said, any and all gun control laws do not apply to felonious individuals. If they were law abiding citizens then they wouldn't be felons.

Also this.

Fully Automatic: Firearm produced with all the necessary components to fire full auto.

Like fully automatic: otherwise modified in order to achieve fully automatic fire.

Semi-Automatic: One press of the trigger fires one round. The opposite of automatic.

There are some firearms that are extremely difficult to modify full-auto, such as shotguns and revolvers.

It's still too easy to get a gun. Even a semi-automatic handgun can kill a magazine's worth of people in a surprise mass shooting. Hell, even a revolver could be used to cause kill several people before the shooter is stopped.

The US' homicide rate has been stedily declining since the early 90's, mass shootings are responsible for less than 1% of gun related homicides wothin the US, and criminals don't follow the laws.

This is not a reason not to lessen the number of mass shootings. Besides, ALL HOMICIDES INVOLVING GUNS WOULD DECREASE IF IT WASN'T AS EASY TO GET A GUN. Why do so few people seem to struggle to understand this?

What everyone here needs to keep in mind is that criminals commit the vast majority of gun related homicides, often associated with drugs. You can melt down all the legal guns you want and 'surprise-surprise' MS-13 didn't get the memo.

Criminals commit all kinds of homicide weirdly enough with homicide being illegal and all. They still have to get the guns from somewhere, which inevitably tracks back to a legal buy somewhere that was way too easy. Really tired of making the same point over and over when nobody has actually provided a counter-argument.

The 2nd amendment is hardwired into our bill of rights. Challenging this right, which is unalienable, calls into question the right to free speech which people are now arguing against with 'hate speech'. It isn't a stretch because it has happened before in history and then we fought a war with those guys and they lost 70 odd years ago.

The right to free speech doesn't give you the right to be a dick. It gives you the right to tell the government they suck. Hate speech laws are not violating the right to free speech. Winning a war isn't much of an argument. "War does not determine who is right, only who is left." Amendments can be changed, it's literally in their title.

We can go back and forth and people can make all the naive comments they like. They can claim they have the right to dictate law to a country they know next to nothing about and they can bleed their hearts dry crying about the poor, unfortunate souls but at the end of the day what have they said?

Well for starters we've said a lot of facts you've done a very poor job of arguing against. You've basically made the same point over and over again and I debunked it pages ago.

I have not seen a single decent argument that even begins to tackle the logistics for implementing the repeal of the 2nd.

See, this is actually a decent point. Not something we can't deal with but better than logical fallacies.

Who is going to foot the bill? Taxpayers? The same taxpayers that don't want to hand over their guns?

Yup! The way I'd do it would be to simply have gun owners pay to dispose of their own unnecessary weapons and then impose a steep fine (and jail time probably) on anyone who is caught with a (now) illegal firearm. Well, that was easy.

Who is going to take the guns away? Is there going to be a buy-back like Australia? If so, then you've already defeated yourself in wanting to get rid of guns, because people won't turn them in for $500.

I would love to see a buy back scheme since that would be the fairest option, but given you have a government that doesn't know how economics works I'd say that's unfeasible.

Would you tax the guns? How much? How often? What happens if they don't pay?

Yes. As much as was required without drastically impacting lives. Not entirely sure here won't lie. Court order and likely jail.

You cause more problems here by claiming rightful, law abiding owners are going to break the law. If you sincerley believe that the majority of gun crime is commited by legal firearms there really is nothing left for me to say.

I believe it because it's true. So you're right, there isn't any more for you to say.

You'll most likely forever continue to spout your mouth off at every tragedy but do nothing about it like the vast majority of those that do. If you have no plan, no structure then you will lose, always. There is no incentive to listen to you or the politicians that claim they know what's best for the citizens despite them lying though their teeth to get you to change your mind. They don't matter and only want to garner support for future campaigns.

I mean, lobbying for gun control and trying to elect more liberal candidates who will vote for stricter gun laws is doing something about the problem. I like the subtle implication here that the democrats and greens are the only ones lying through their teeth given the current government (in particular the president) in power.

More people are murdered with handguns than long rifles if you had any doubt about that. . .

Well duh, handguns are cheaper. They too are also far too easy to get your hands on. This argument changes nothing.

If you ever wanted to know, if you ever had an open mind or half a thought to treat both sides fairly, which most of you are not despite your claiming to do so, you would do your own research. The gun show loophole doesn't exist and it's harder to obtain a gun than a car.

Wow I guess all that evidence to the contrary is wrong then. Silly me!

Why? Because you need a license to own a firearm. You will get a background check by law, otherwise the gunstore will receive a massive fine and lose their license and potentially receive jail time depending.

It's too easy to get the license. That's the problem.

Quit refusing to do research into these laws. You do this and all it makes you is a jackass.

Did do research. I've actually posted sources for my information. You know, those facts that prove you wrong.

Harsh? Maybe. But really, grow up, grow some balls and quit listening to dorks like myself and do your own research in to actual laws. Not Fox news, CNN, MSNBC or whatever else you may or may not watch. The law and facts are what decide the outcome of whether or not (if you have a plan) your plan can be implemented.

I'm not listening to you, don't worry. I prefer to use facts in my arguments.

If you really have no clue how guns work, I really don't want to talk to you about the law. Just the way it works. You've come from the kiddie table with your crayons and big beautiful ideas only to get a pat on the head by mom and get scowled at by grandpa who thinks you're a froot loop.

Being rude isn't really going to help an argument that doesn't even have facts to support it.

In order to change the law, you must know the law. If you are unwilling to learn the law you will be ignored by those that are most critical in changing it. I should not have to explain the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic or single and dual action.

You don't need to. They all need better regulation anyway.

If you don't know these terms by the way, congratulations: you have just been denied gun ownership. Yes. That's right. There's a test.

It's really not hard to find out what these things mean, so that's not really helping your argument either.

 

[Arsenic]

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.

Please scroll up to see my post on how even though my state has no firearms laws aside from federal ones, it still has one of the lowest rates of guncrime in the country (#3 lowest I believe)

Oh and #2 and #1 also have no state mandated gun laws. Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire!

But the news would never talk about that that goes against their message that "Guns R scury n Evol"

 

[Kanzler]

Please scroll up to see my post on how even though my state has no firearms laws aside from federal ones, it still has one of the lowest rates of guncrime in the country (#3 lowest I believe)

Oh and #2 and #1 also have no state mandated gun laws. Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire!

But the news would never talk about that that goes against their message that "Guns R scury n Evol"

Laws respond to need. If everybody was responsible with their guns, gun control wouldn't be necessary. You'll find that the states with the strictest gun control are the ones who need it most - imagine how much worse things would be without gun control there.

 

[Arsenic]

Laws respond to need. If everybody was responsible with their guns, gun control wouldn't be necessary. You'll find that the states with the strictest gun control are the ones who need it most - imagine how much worse things would be without gun control there.

I was born in a bad city to live in and I have to say decently-strict gun control didn't stop the two drive-bys I have survived as a child. Guns were considered the same as a lot of people here do, where I grew up. I never even saw a gun up close except for on a police officer. Definitely never was taught anything other than "If you ever have a gun for some reason never point it at someone else."

Meanwhile here where I live now (new-hampshire) I was raised (since the age of 12, I think is when I moved here) around guns. I was taught how to safely handle a gun. People come into the store I work with all kinds of guns. Heck some parents give their child a shotgun or rifle for their 10 or 12 birthday (I can think of multiple people just in my class who got a rifle when they turned 10! And my class was only 60-something people!)

Even with my state being one of the ones often cited when talking about the "nationwide heroin epidemic" you never hear or see drug or gang related violence, never mind gun violence.

Conclusion: How you're raised makes a huge difference in how you will interact with the world, especially involving a gun. Less accidents happen when you know how dangerous what you're holding is and can safely and confidently handle the item (because an item is all it is.)

And before someone says "Oh you live in New Hampshire theres no urban areas there it's all rednecks in the woods!" See: The entire southern 3rd of the state.

 

[Kanzler]

I was born in a bad city to live in and I have to say decently-strict gun control didn't stop the two drive-bys I have survived as a child. Guns were considered the same as a lot of people here do, where I grew up. I never even saw a gun up close except for on a police officer. Definitely never was taught anything other than "If you ever have a gun for some reason never point it at someone else."

Meanwhile here where I live now (new-hampshire) I was raised (since the age of 12, I think is when I moved here) around guns. I was taught how to safely handle a gun. People come into the store I work with all kinds of guns. Heck some parents give their child a shotgun or rifle for their 10 or 12 birthday (I can think of multiple people just in my class who got a rifle when they turned 10! And my class was only 60-something people!)

Even with my state being one of the ones often cited when talking about the "nationwide heroin epidemic" you never hear or see drug or gang related violence, never mind gun violence.

Conclusion: How you're raised makes a huge difference in how you will interact with the world, especially involving a gun. Less accidents happen when you know how dangerous what you're holding is and can safely and confidently handle the item (because an item is all it is.)

And before someone says "Oh you live in New Hampshire theres no urban areas there it's all rednecks in the woods!" See: The entire southern 3rd of the state.

How is this relevant to my point that gun laws get put up where gun crime is high?

 

[Arsenic]

How is this relevant to my point that gun laws get put up where gun crime is high?

Gun crime wouldn't be as high if people were raised different.

Something something we have the drugs and gun access but very low gun crime because how people are brought up here imo.

 

[Kanzler]

Gun crime wouldn't be as high if people were raised different.

Something something we have the drugs and gun access but very low gun crime because how people are brought up here imo.

So what's the plan for raising people right to reduce gun crime?

 

[Arsenic]

So what's the plan for raising people right to reduce gun crime?

I think a solid basis would be to teach people gun safety and handling in high school the same way I had to learn archery. That's just a starting point though I suppose.

 

[Sektor]

. . .

You've babbled a lot, but said nothing.

Yoou are extremely misinformed and parade around like you know a thing or two. The BJS and the FBI disagree with you regarding gang related violence. So as far as your claims of violence commited by legally obtained weapons i.e. obtaining a weapon through a surrogate is illegal.
Please note, that the FBI also touches on the issue of gangs obtaining military grade weaponry. Citizens cannot legally obtain military grade weaponry.

What is military grade weaponry? Machine guns, high-grade explosives, armor-piercing rounds and/or shells.

As much as you want to hoot and holler the FBI really has no interest in your personal thoughts or feelings. It's all right there from official sources. They clearly state in black and white that criminals are obtaining weapons illegally. Not legally. Unless big brother is watching you every second of everyday there is no way to know where a gun is for every individual 24/7.

They are stolen, purchased illegally through the black market, brought in from Mexico and other countries illegally, manufactured illegally or otherwise some other method not sanctioned by the government. There are laws against selling guns or obtaining guns for another person. Felons cannot posess firearms legally.

'No guns allowed' gives the illusion of safety. Just because there is a sign doesn't mean someone with a gun won't show up. This person is not law abiding, are they?

Gang activity has increased in California, Illinois and Nevada particularly.

Texas estimates that a whopping 90% of their violent crime comes from criminals.

You mock and berate me without any proof. You again refuse to use the tools available to you and will, most likely, ignore the blatent facts laid out for you.

I don't discount suicide but we'll go over some just for fun, since you like to play on the train tracks.

Here is a handy list to go by from suicide.org. Note that the United States ranks 43. Behind countries like France, Germany, Japan, Poland, South Korea, China and Romania. Romania has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. Still higher in suicide than the US. Private citizens are typically not allowed to own firearms in China.

Let's run some murder statistics.
Romania has a murder rate of 1.5 per 100,000 persons. Australia has 1.2 per 100,000 persons. Kazakstan has 7.8 per 100,000. The US has 4.5 murders per 100,000 persons.

Keep in mind that the US has arguably the most criminal activity in the world.

This information us all readily available and easy to access were you to desire as such.

Motive is everything in the court of law. Let's play this out logically, shall we?

If a man kills his wife, why? Should he go straight to prison? By your logic, assuming motive doesn't matter or has nothing to do with the outcome, he should.

What if his wife was sleeping with another man? This is a crime of passion.

What if his wife tried to murder him? Self defense. Motive is everything, and this also applies to mental stability in our court of law.

No matter if you like it or not this is the way it works. It doesn't matter if a man shoots up a theater or murders his wife there is still a trial regardless, whether we want there to be or not. The system is in place for all and removing it would detrimental to our free society.

So, again. Convince me otherwise. Why should law abiding citizens not be able to own firearms when criminals obtain illegal and restricted weapons regardless? A fully automatic weapon brought in from Mexico has no business in the US, yet they make it into our country.

Perhaps instead of focusing on the 'gun problem' you should ask yourself what's the best way to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons that aren't sold in any gun store in the US.

You have put forth no true suggestions and saw fit to blather at me about how you would force the gun owners into paying to dispose of their own weapons. Sorry. That will never work. It's ridiculous and again, you would need 2/3 votes to table it. Your arguments have been brought up multiple times to multiple justices over a number of decades and each and every single one has decided that the 2nd amendment is not going anywhere any time soon.

Also, as a general rule handguns are not cheaper than long guns. I can buy nearly 3-5 rifles for the price of a handgun depending on the make.

Depending on the manufacturer . . . why am I even arguing this? Haha! You don't know, so why even bother? No disrespect, but you seriously need to take a look at some prices before you blab.

You made me laugh.

You really can't be that ignorant, can you? Like cars, firearms have several manufacterers and arguably more so. I use cars because it's fairly easy to understand.

Like cars, prices vary wildly depending on where you shop. Of course a Porsche 911 will most likely cost more than a Toyota, unless you're buying a Toyota Supra which as far as I can tell is no longer manufactuered and is highly sought in the Japanese car community.

I can buy a cheap .223 rifle for $300 or I could buy a .22 handgun made buy Smith and Wesson for $400. Pricing means shit. Which furthers my point. You really know nothing about guns, do you not?

You're going about talking to somebody far more steeped in the industry than yourself and telling me what's what? I wish the one deciding things was you because it'd be a walk in the park to defeat your arguments day in and day out.

You cannot decide the fate of many without explaining why and explaining where you've gathered your knowledge. As of now I view you less than a novice in the gun field. In order to convince me, which means millions of other responsible gun owners that pay attention, you're going to have to be able to teach me something new, which so far, you haven't.

You can talk all you want but you can't keep the blatent cluelessness from bleeding through. I'm calling bullshit. You cannot make or pass laws without knowing anything about what you are attempting to ban!

Where has it been that you have seen someone rhat blunders through and manages to get laws passed without knowing jack shit? I'm sorry, but until you can actually prove to me that you know some shit I would never take you seriously, and neither will the millions of others that legally own guns that haven't broken any laws.

Your 'plan' would create criminals, not diminish the problem. And since you're a noob and haven't any credentials like myself you won't get far. Seriously ask yourself.

Who would a court side with before we even got to the floor? A USMC veteran with actual firearm ownership experience? Or yourself? I don't know your credentials but if need be I would pull out all the stops to steam roll your arguments providing the courts with all the information the FBI, DOJ and BJS provides.

The argument here isn't to prevent criminals from owning guns. Everyone here is in agreement on that. The argument is against the 2nd amendment and legal citizens owning firearms.

Why should a legal, law abiding citizen not be able to own a gun? Because criminals can get them? I've already told ypu and showed you that machineguns are not for sale to the civilian market. Criminals can obtain machineguns. Illegally.

So, why can't a legal citizen be able to own a firearm? This is the question regarding the 2nd. Nothing else.

 

[MaӾiej]

Okay, another question. What are ways we halt or slow down the flow of illegal guns? I'm personally all for stricter and more regularly enforced gun control but I still support the Second Amendment. Granted, I'll personally never own a gun because I don't like them. I have family members that have had them but I can care less about owning a gun. I'll just stick to other means to defending myself if someone breaks in, which is unlikely.

 

[BronzeHeart92]

JDJacket: Oh don't worry, I'm pretty sure gimmepie will deconstruct your message eventually just like he always does. The thing is, I gave you a platform where you can debate freely and yet you've been extremely one sided so far. Yes, I get that you don't want to get rid of your precious 2nd Amendment. But shutting down other's voices won't do you any good. Like it or not, he does have a point.

 

[twocows]

I would say the same thing I said to twocows. That sure is a nice strawman you've got there.

It's not a straw man if people have been been arguing for it. Maybe you didn't yourself, in which case that's my mistake, but there are others in this thread (and certainly elsewhere) who advocate a complete firearms ban and removal, the original poster of this thread seeming to be one such individual. I do generally agree with fixing our current system and I'm open to ways to do this that don't entirely prevent reasonable, well-intentioned people from purchasing a firearm for personal protection or to hunt with.

As an aside, my boss brought up an idea that I kind of like: licensing ammo. You can own the gun with few restrictions, but ammo would be more closely tracked and more strictly regulated. I actually kind of like this idea and think it works in a lot of ways. Any thoughts on this?

The thing is, I gave you a platform where you can debate freely

You brought up a topic for discussion; the platform is the forum and is maintained by others, not you. Moreover, you brought up the topic in a pretty condescending and one-sided way, but that's understandable because...

and yet you've been extremely one sided so far.

...advocating a position in a debate is typically a one-sided affair, as you yourself have demonstrated. It's also understandable that people might get worked up over something they care about, although it is usually counterproductive to let it actually work its way into your argument.

Yes, I get that you don't want to get rid of your precious 2nd Amendment.

I think his tone left something to be desired (I don't think saying that gimmepie was babbling and misinformed is accurate or appropriate), but frankly so does yours. If you want to actually have a productive discussion where people listen to each other and try to improve their beliefs, you should talk to them like they are rational human beings who happen to hold different views than you do, not as though they are children clutching at a beloved toy that they have outgrown.

Like it or not, he does have a point.

Your repeated refrain that "he has a point" without actually arguing (or even stating) said point yourself and the implication that nobody arguing the opposing side has a counter-point is not really adding anything to the discussion.

 

[BronzeHeart92]

The second amendment was written at a time when guns simply weren't that deadly, the deadliest things in those times were canons and I don't know if those were allowed.
Even if you don't think the guns of today are deadly enough to warrant any change, what about the future? I mean just hypothetically, if we were able to go from muskets to very versatile m4's, wouldn't logic dictate even more effective killing machines later down the road? And if we ban those, the government would still have them. So by that logic over time the point is moot because the government would be allowed more and more powerful products but the civilians are limited to things that aren't that dangerous.
Was the second amendment always about people personally bearing arms to stop a tyrannical government, I always thought that each state had its own small army until sometime either before or after the civil war.
Is there really no other way to defend against a tyrannical government then arms being so easy to acquire, what if 5% of the military budget was dedicated to giving money for a small army for every state? I'm just throwing around ideas here.
And I do think that guns are bad for our society, the USA has a huge amount of gun deaths compared to other first world countries. It's true that a lot of our dangerous cities have strict gun laws, but that doesn't really matter because guns get funneled into them through non strict gun states.
If banning guns would only allow bad guys to have guns, and good guys would be defenseless, why has banning guns worked so well for other countries? Gun deaths in Canada are not nearly as high, I know some places in Europe don't even give cops guns because they rarely need them.
I dont agree with a lot of pro gun arguments. "People kill people, not guns", well if people are killing machines why would you let them have things like guns that make killing even easier? "Cars kill people too", but cars aren't made to kill people, so any car killing people is working in spite of its design, not because of it. I know the majority of gun owners are obviously not killers or whatever, but does that really mean guns should be allowed to be owned? If bombs were legal and the majority of bomb owners used them safely just to watch cool explosions, it wouldn't matter since there are still people who would and could use bombs to hurt others. Isn't that why bombs aren't allowed? Should bombs be allowed to by this rationale? And why did the NRA say teachers should have guns to stop school shooters, isn't that just escalation? Like cops get bullet proof vests, criminals get armor piercing bullets, cops get military vests, criminals get automatics, etc. etc. Also another argument is always that "you can't change the constitution!", I don't even know what that means. We've changed it multiple times, I think Thomas Jefferson or someone said it should be changed every 10 years or something, and why would we assume that people living hundreds of years ago who themselves argued and disagreed constantly somehow have an opinion that can't be changed no matter what.
I know its impossible to even implement a gun ban, though places like australia did and had less gun deaths because of it, doing it here would just result in a lot of chaos and violence. But isn't that basically gun owners holding america hostage? Anyway a ban really shouldn't or couldn't be implemented unless the opinion is swayed to some extent.
The only argument I get is the tyrannical government one, but like I said it's really flawed and i feel like most of the people bringing it up do it as a deflection of wanting to keep guns as their hobby.

- A poster from Newgrounds

 

[Sektor]

The second amendment was written at a time when guns simply weren't that deadly, the deadliest things in those times were canons and I don't know if those were allowed.
Even if you don't think the guns of today are deadly enough to warrant any change, what about the future? I mean just hypothetically, if we were able to go from muskets to very versatile m4's, wouldn't logic dictate even more effective killing machines later down the road? And if we ban those, the government would still have them. So by that logic over time the point is moot because the government would be allowed more and more powerful products but the civilians are limited to things that aren't that dangerous.
Was the second amendment always about people personally bearing arms to stop a tyrannical government, I always thought that each state had its own small army until sometime either before or after the civil war.
Is there really no other way to defend against a tyrannical government then arms being so easy to acquire, what if 5% of the military budget was dedicated to giving money for a small army for every state? I'm just throwing around ideas here.
And I do think that guns are bad for our society, the USA has a huge amount of gun deaths compared to other first world countries. It's true that a lot of our dangerous cities have strict gun laws, but that doesn't really matter because guns get funneled into them through non strict gun states.
If banning guns would only allow bad guys to have guns, and good guys would be defenseless, why has banning guns worked so well for other countries? Gun deaths in Canada are not nearly as high, I know some places in Europe don't even give cops guns because they rarely need them.
I dont agree with a lot of pro gun arguments. "People kill people, not guns", well if people are killing machines why would you let them have things like guns that make killing even easier? "Cars kill people too", but cars aren't made to kill people, so any car killing people is working in spite of its design, not because of it. I know the majority of gun owners are obviously not killers or whatever, but does that really mean guns should be allowed to be owned? If bombs were legal and the majority of bomb owners used them safely just to watch cool explosions, it wouldn't matter since there are still people who would and could use bombs to hurt others. Isn't that why bombs aren't allowed? Should bombs be allowed to by this rationale? And why did the NRA say teachers should have guns to stop school shooters, isn't that just escalation? Like cops get bullet proof vests, criminals get armor piercing bullets, cops get military vests, criminals get automatics, etc. etc. Also another argument is always that "you can't change the constitution!", I don't even know what that means. We've changed it multiple times, I think Thomas Jefferson or someone said it should be changed every 10 years or something, and why would we assume that people living hundreds of years ago who themselves argued and disagreed constantly somehow have an opinion that can't be changed no matter what.
I know its impossible to even implement a gun ban, though places like australia did and had less gun deaths because of it, doing it here would just result in a lot of chaos and violence. But isn't that basically gun owners holding america hostage? Anyway a ban really shouldn't or couldn't be implemented unless the opinion is swayed to some extent.
The only argument I get is the tyrannical government one, but like I said it's really flawed and i feel like most of the people bringing it up do it as a deflection of wanting to keep guns as their hobby.

- A poster from Newgrounds

Cannons were allowed. As well as rapid fire deck guns. These weapons were actually military grade.

This poster you have decided to quote doesn't know their stuff. All it takes is a couple history lessons in small arms technology throughout the centuries to be able to debunk this. Here's a rough article ripped right from the first result of '2nd amendment cannons'.

Keep in mind, I have sourced you two official sources for your perusal regarding drug and gang activity and/or threat assessments. Your quoted newgrounds person seems to need to take another course in basic economics. Illegal trade > criminals > illegal gains > protection of illegal gains > violence. Very crude, very basic stuff.

Again, no one here has broached the main issue. How would you convince me, a responsible gun owner and veteran that I cannot legally own my firarm because a criminal had his hands on a machinegun that I could never obtain legally?

Before we delve further, a side note: you need to understand that rifles and long guns are used far less to commit murders than handguns.

Portability.

The FBI again has these statistics all readily available to you. No need to use google. Use the UCR database for criminal statistics. They also keep track of checks.

If you don't know the rules, if you don't know the history, them why should the law change for you? I hope you can see why I find it less than convincing when the only response for the FBI comes from some unnamed poster on Newgrounds, whatever that may be.

Why can't I have a gun? Why do I have to turn in my property without due compensation? Because criminals commit crimes? I don't need rhetoric, I don't need feelings and I don't need some snarky 'but mah Europe' comment or remark.

This is the United States we are talking about. Not Zimbabwe, not Germany, not Canada. You must use the data you have avalable here in the US in order to change the law. You cannot point out Britain and how great they are *cough* car attacks *cough* and not get laughed out of the room.

You cannot apply European law to US law and call it the same law. Europe has different demographics and different rules they go by.

I will not accept any argument that brings up 'mah Europe' as serious. In order to be taken seriously by not only myself but by others with my view you must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that responsible ownership is the main issue. Gimmipie's notions of creating laws that will forcefully jail persons like myself for not turning in our firearms is unconstitutional. It's sad, really. It isn't feasible and makes a mockery of the entire discussion.

I want logistics, I want knowledge and sources. What would the plan be to stop illegal guns? This is possibly your first and most important task. Without a way to staunch the flow of criminal actions in place, legal citizens like myself, is probably the least of your worries. Pouring more resources into taking legally obtained property when people in Michigan aren't able to drink their water is maybe . . . a bad political move.

Give and take. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The government sucks cash like a chubby kid sucks soda and any move you make, that kid gets more and more thirsty. There isn't a magic wand that wishes guns away and makes laws reality.

I am willing to listen to any ideas you have in mind but be prepared to be told that your funding would never be granted or why a supreme justice would never allow you to do it. It would need to be feasible and drawn up on our governmental system using laws and funding currently in place. Feel free to cancel programs or move them around at your leisure.

There are several cogs you must reach around without getting crushed and gun control is probably the worst platform you could ever possibly run with and it's riddled with landmines.

 

[BronzeHeart92]

JDJacket: Well, I still stand by that poster's world, right to the bitter end if I must. Same with gimmepie. Now, I might have said this once already but I will say it again: Would you in full faith desire something similar to your 2nd Amendment for Europe? I get that you might be afraid of government, criminals etc. but the think is, you can't hide behind your guns forever. I mean, I'm after all still alive and kicking, right? So I definitely have nothing to fear. Internet after all has a global reach and you can bet there are other countries who looks down upon you because of the right to keep and bear arms, mine included. It's your words against mine after all. Sure, Europe's not perfect and I'm fine with it.

 

[MaӾiej]

You know, I'm a little curious. How many mass shooters in the past 20 years have actually had criminal records before they fired the first bullet of their rampage? How many of them were supposed to be legally barred from purchasing any guns and ammo? Without looking any of the shootings up, I know there were at least a few of them could legally purchase guns and ammo without any issues before their rampage.

Also, how is the AR-15 not banned yet? Have we not learned anything from the mass shootings where the shooter used one?