The PCNation

[Neil Peart]

I vote Version Two, and I want to join the Socialist party. I can't remember what you named it, and I don't want to click around too much because I'll hit a cow.

 

[gimmepie]

I vote Version Two, and I want to join the Socialist party. I can't remember what you named it, and I don't want to click around too much because I'll hit a cow.

There'll be a proper poll posted up if we agree we're ready to vote. So need to announce anything.

Also I'm happy for you to join the socialist party, I get to make a thread for it now ^_^
You'll see that appear some time soon.

 

[Kanzler]

Version 2 is better in most respects, but I will vote against any kind of public carry unless it is regulated with competency-based licensing.

 

[gimmepie]

Alright, I'm putting up a poll.

Edit: Poll is up and will last seven days. After this poll, unless we are unanimous in wanting the bill passed, a second vote on whether or not the bill is actually passed or not can be conducted.

 

[Kanzler]

I'm not voting for either because I cannot in conscience endorse either - both are too extreme in their own way. I do not want to suggest, through voting, that I am in support of either one.

 

[esperance]

/casually entering the conversation

Looking to get involved, I'll offer what I think. Frankly, neither bill is a very good solution. Version 1 is extremely restrictive to the point where it's basically pointless for anyone without criminal intentions to purchase one, when they are limited to licensed firing ranges and backwoods properties. Kinda defeats the purpose of letting people purchase guns in the first place, yes? And Version 2 is basically "guns are cool as long as you let people know you're carrying them" which isn't really all that much gun control in the end.

Another thing, psych evals sound nice in theory but they basically boil down to observing people and determining their personalities... and I wonder how efficient this system would actually be?
Just a bit about psych evals

The way I see it you either let people carry guns and do as they wish (more in line with version 2), or completely remove civilian access (more in line with version 1), but neither bill here seems to be able to answer either of these points.

 

[☆Rei☆]

I'm in alignment for Version 2.

Freedom of guns are a-okay. But, obviously they cannot go unrestricted.

I'd feel safer as a person to be carrying a gun, not because of the intention to shoot the first criminal I see, but rather as a beacon of warning. If someone sees you with a gun, you're less likely to be mugged/robbed due to basic concept of the risk/reward factor.

Furthermore, if such unfortunate circumstances do occur, you have something to defend yourself with. A gun does not necessarily have to kill. A shot to the leg should suffice, you remove their mobility without killing them.

Restrictions however, should be applied to limit the chances of a crisis. Though, no matter what action we take, preventing a crisis involving guns would be almost impossible, even with the complete ban of guns to civilians. (Which could happen through smuggling, theft from authorities, black markets, and people can create their own guns, too. There's probably more methods, but this is all that I can think from the top of my head)

 

[esperance]

...

My only question for you is where we draw the line on what constitutes a "safe gun" -- so far both versions 1 and 2 seem to agree that fully automatic guns are a big no-no, but suddenly shotguns and semi-automatic guns are a-okay in version 2? We seem to be basing the current line on ability to inflict mass destruction or something. How is the average person (like me) to know whether the guns we could encounter on the street are able to kill a whole block of people or not?

 

[Biogoji]

I stand by my views that version 1 is the way to go.

 

[☆Rei☆]

My only question for you is where we draw the line on what constitutes a "safe gun" -- so far both versions 1 and 2 seem to agree that fully automatic guns are a big no-no, but suddenly shotguns and semi-automatic guns are a-okay in version 2? We seem to be basing the current line on ability to inflict mass destruction or something. How is the average person (like me) to know whether the guns we could encounter on the street are able to kill a whole block of people or not?

Well, generally, pump action shotguns (which is what version 2 explicitly states) have a slow reload time, which in the time it takes them to reload their weapon, they can easily be taken down.

Semi-automatic weapons however, either requires more skill and time to properly aim in cases of larger guns, or are smaller like pistols.

Generally, you would not be able to shoot down an entire block on your own if there is proper security, which is anyway needed in a properly functioning society. To top it off, knowing that others will have a form of defense/defiance against the shooter in question should be enough to make them rethink their actions, and if not, I doubt any sort of gun control would stop them to begin with.

 

[Kanzler]

Generally, you would not be able to shoot down an entire block on your own if there is proper security, which is anyway needed in a properly functioning society. To top it off, knowing that others will have a form of defense/defiance against the shooter in question should be enough to make them rethink their actions, and if not, I doubt any sort of gun control would stop them to begin with.

Doesn't this assume that there exists a gun culture where guns proliferate through society? If you begin with a society that's already heavily armed, then I can see the argument in which open carry might be useful. But if we begin with a society where bearing arms is a right BUT guns do not proliferate, then I don't see how open carry would be beneficial.

 

[Nah]

PS: Should I announce here if I wanna start my own political party? I've been thinking of a direct democracy leaned party, that will encourage civic inclusion in political affairs and will focus on political education being a big thing in schools.

Yeah, you gotta announce it here. Once at least one other person agrees to join your party you can make the thread for it. Hopefully someone will join yours soon so we can have more than one operational political party.

If the goal of the right to carry firearms is to defend yourselves; what do you need a semi-automatic gun for?

Almost all firearms these days are either automatic or semi-automatic so....

 

[☆Rei☆]

That's not a reason to give automatic/semi guns to people.

The point is that a regular pistol is semi-automatic. Unless it is a revolver, that is. Plus, Version 2 bans automatic guns, so that shouldn't be a valid argument against it, as neither version accepts them.

Doesn't this assume that there exists a gun culture where guns proliferate through society? If you begin with a society that's already heavily armed, then I can see the argument in which open carry might be useful. But if we begin with a society where bearing arms is a right BUT guns do not proliferate, then I don't see how open carry would be beneficial.

Again, having gun control won't solve anything at all. There will be methods to obtain a gun around the law. If you give the people the right to defend themselves, then it in itself will become less of an issue compared to if you revoke the privilege to wield a gun.

 

[Kanzler]

Again, having gun control won't solve anything at all. There will be methods to obtain a gun around the law. If you give the people the right to defend themselves, then it in itself will become less of an issue compared to if you revoke the privilege to wield a gun.

Then I applaud America's simultaneous lack of gun control as well as it's brilliant homicide rate.

*cue applause*

 

[Neil Peart]

Then I applause America's simultaneous lack of gun control as well as it's brilliant homicide rate.

*cue applause*

This times a thousand.

 

[Biogoji]

Again, having gun control won't solve anything at all. There will be methods to obtain a gun around the law. If you give the people the right to defend themselves, then it in itself will become less of an issue compared to if you revoke the privilege to wield a gun.

Just to add some food to thought the weapon that was used in the Sandy Hook shooting cost around $30,000 on the Australian Black Market now I'm not sure what the conversion rate between Australia and PCNation is but either way it would most likely still be a big number which could put some people off from buying them and people who have psychological issues or mental disabilities who have been refused a gun license would probably have a hard time getting a gun off the black market it would be pretty suspicious if someone with down syndrome was going around asking where they could buy a gun.

 

[Dusty]

I think version two is the better of them, mostly because I do support the open carry idea, but I think that pump actions and semi-auto rifles do need to be more restricted. Not outright banned, but they should be much harder to get a hold of than a handgun for example. I can see a reason for having such weapons, going bird hunting with a pump action shotgun is absurdly fun (although not much meat from it), and you could hunt with a semi-auto as well to some degree, as well as being a weapon used for sport such as target shooting or the like.

But those weapons should be a whole lot harder to get your hands on. More expensive for sure, perhaps stricter licensing than a handgun, and maybe a small monthly tax based upon the price and number of restricted guns. That way, they can be had and used, but are harder to get and have a cost applied to them. More than that, I think that open carry should only be for handguns, perhaps only those with smaller caliber bullets.

Going off of Umbra and Biogoji's points, the black market will always be there and will never go away. Whether guns are regulated or not, people with enough motivation and money will be able to get their hands on illegal weapons. But like Biogoji said, getting weapons and ammunition on the black market is absurdly expensive. Arms deals will always be there behind the scenes, but your average citizen isn't going to be spending enough money for a new car on a couple of AKs.

 

[gimmepie]

Currently the votes are tied, interesting.

 

[Neil Peart]

I hope we get a tiebreaker soon so we can get some more legislation rolling.

 

[gimmepie]

I hope we get a tiebreaker soon so we can get some more legislation rolling.

That's assuming we all unanimously agree we need to pass the bill. We might very well end up with a vote on whether or not the bill gets passed once we know which one we're looking at. Although I won't be making anyone wait another full week if that happens.