Gun Control...

[K4_Kydure]

I can tell you it doesn't put me in a good mood, so you're wrong there. Another thing that you're wrong about is that I'm pro-gun and I'm an educated southern woman so your 'stupid rambling garbage' theory isn't quite correct either. What gets me the most is your utter hypocrisy. You've cried about racism before yet you just used the exact same method racism and other stereotyping relies on to even exist. Yet here you are thinking it makes you look smart when you need a wall of text to explain yourself.

 

The problem with guns in my eyes is not the firearm itself or the entirely the people behind them but the mass media that love sensationalizing and making a game out of these tragedies that inspire more to commit such acts. The further propagation of gang and drug culture that end up leading to more violence doesn't help this either with the lack of proper knowledge and awareness of firearms safety.

 

I will forever defend the rights of American citizens to carry firearms to protect themselves from threats be it foreign or local and for recreational use. I'll be damned if I ever see the founding father's work ripped apart and called 'outdated' by people who are far less intelligent than them.

[Vapymid]

The problem with guns in my eyes is not the firearm itself or the entirely the people behind them but the mass media that love sensationalizing and making a game out of these tragedies that inspire more to commit such acts. The further propagation of gang and drug culture that end up leading to more violence doesn't help this either with the lack of proper knowledge and awareness of firearms safety.

 

But you can't suppress the media without severely limiting the freedom of speech and even if you do, the information will spread anyway through the internet, and gangs are a wider socioeconomic problem and it is not going to go away either...

 

I will forever defend the rights of American citizens to carry firearms to protect themselves from threats be it foreign or local and for recreational use. I'll be damned if I ever see the founding father's work ripped apart and called 'outdated' by people who are far less intelligent than them.

 

Looking at the US from the outside I can say: here is your problem - the guns are simply too easily available, which in turn make them look as if not dangerous in the eyes of too many people who become careless. A licensing program and tighter controls will most likely cut a lot of accidental and petty gun crime. It won't stop the maniacs but, perhaps, will make killing sprees happening more rarely.

 

However, given the politisation of the issue, supported by the weapons manufacturers, it's not going to happen. A rational debate of this matter is impossible in the US, at least for the time being...

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

But you can't suppress the media without severely limiting the freedom of speech and even if you do, the information will spread anyway through the internet, and gangs are a wider socioeconomic problem and it is not going to go away either...

True, which is why we need a program that actually teaches kids about firearms, and the safety rules concerning them at a young age. (I know I'll be starting any of my kids learning the rules at age 4, and firing an actual gun as soon as they are ready)

 

Looking at the US from the outside I can say: here is your problem - the guns are simply too easily available, which in turn make them look as if not dangerous in the eyes of too many people who become careless. A licensing program and tighter controls will most likely cut a lot of accidental and petty gun crime. It won't stop the maniacs but, perhaps, will make killing sprees happening more rarely.

The problem with this is that it really doesn't matter how many legal restrictions occur with guns, as criminals don't follow them. There is a huge black market for firearms in the USA, and they don't care if you intend to commit a crime with them or not. Most criminals know how to get firearms from these black market sources, and it's remarkably rare for them to get a firearm through legal means. (put as many laws in place as you want, the number of criminals that use guns will not significantly drop in this country)

 

However, given the politisation of the issue, supported by the weapons manufacturers, it's not going to happen. A rational debate of this matter is impossible in the US, at least for the time being...

It does appear that way, but at least you are willing to try to discuss it civilly with us.

[Vapymid]

I accept that criminals won't be stopped getting guns by laws and regulations. In fact, this is the main reason why I think that civilian gun ownership should be allowed (albeit controlled) - simply because law abiding citizens are put at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the criminals.

 

But what I think the controls and regulations would do is - limit the amount of loonies with guns and also, hopefully, enforce a certain minimal proficiency and safety standards among civilian gun owners.

 

I think that if you can't buy a gun on impulse, if you have to show evidence that you know how to handle it, if you have to demonstrate that you have a secure place to store it - that would all reduce the number of drunk shootings, accidental discharges, toddlers shooting parents etc.

 

Also, I think it would be a good idea to track and challenge people stockpiling stuff without a proper reason.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

But what I think the controls and regulations would do is - limit the amount of loonies with guns and also, hopefully, enforce a certain minimal proficiency and safety standards among civilian gun owners.

So you're thinking something like a personality profile in addition to a background check?

 

I think that if you can't buy a gun on impulse, if you have to show evidence that you know how to handle it, if you have to demonstrate that you have a secure place to store it - that would all reduce the number of drunk shootings, accidental discharges, toddlers shooting parents etc.

You would be surprised at the number of gun stores that won't sell you a gun until you have taken a firearms training course from their shop, or demonstrated your understanding of firearm safety when handling the display models. Also, most new guns come with a secure safety locking system, so proving that you have somewhere safe to store those is moot.

 

This is the lock that is included with Ruger handguns, and how it is intended to be used.

 

 

 

Also, I think it would be a good idea to track and challenge people stockpiling stuff without a proper reason.

The problem with that is that it violates the freedom of an individual. As long as they haven't committed a crime, it is illegal to surveil them in that fashion.

[Collective Foal]

I can tell you it doesn't put me in a good mood, so you're wrong there. Another thing that you're wrong about is that I'm pro-gun and I'm an educated southern woman so your 'stupid rambling garbage' theory isn't quite correct either. What gets me the most is your utter hypocrisy. You've cried about racism before yet you just used the exact same method racism and other stereotyping relies on to even exist. Yet here you are thinking it makes you look smart when you need a wall of text to explain yourself.

 

Well then I'm not here for your amusement, now am I?

 

Again, I never said it was to make me look smart. BTG said before he wasn't really good with critical reading and writing, so I was explaining the idea of the sentence to him. Again, it has no substantial backbone to it at all and it was simply there to poke fun and trying to use that as leverage against my argument is still ineffective.

 

You see, I have the sources, I have the evidence, I have the facts that show that civilian firearm possession results in civilian casualties. Meanwhile, I fail to see even close to my amount of evidence in the opposite direction.

 

So you can say I've got a bit of wiggle room to sling a little mud here and there.

 

The key thing is, yet again, that I've addressed the issue with evidence and you, so far, have failed to do so. If you can provide an ample amount of material to prove me wrong, I will humbly accept defeat and apologize for any of my transgressions. But if you're going to criticize me and think you can pull me apart because I made a smart-ass remark about a white stereotype and hurt your feelings, then you're going to strike out over and over. (btw it isn't racism if it's against white people. racism is a societal system of prejudice. You can't be a victim of racism when your race is the one running everything)

[Vapymid]

So you're thinking something like a personality profile in addition to a background check?

Also, I think it would be a good idea to track and challenge people stockpiling stuff without a proper reason.

The problem with that is that it violates the freedom of an individual. As long as they haven't committed a crime, it is illegal to surveil them in that fashion.

 

I am personally opposed to profiling and tracking in general, but not when there is a rational reason, which in my opinion is not a matter of freedom but rather that of responsibility.

 

For example, if you get a pilot licence - you accept to be bound by the Laws of the Air, you maintain your log book, you know that you must fly a certain minimum number of hours to maintain currency and that if you don't, you will need to do a mandatory check-out with an instructor before you can fly solo again and your licence may be revoked if you break these rules.

 

In the case of guns - it's similar IMHO. You exercise your right to own a weapon but with it comes additional responsibility and the granting authority has a justifiable right to monitor compliance.

 

Let's not use the emotionally charged word "gun" for a moment.

 

Imagine we are talking about a "Chemically-Actuated High-Power Kinetic Projector" device. Most people would find it perfectly reasonable and even obvious that certain professional criteria and regulations should apply to operators of such machinery, don't you think?

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

BTG said before he wasn't really good with critical reading and writing, so I was explaining the idea of the sentence to him.

On the contrary, I have never said anything of the sort. The closest I have ever come to that is my statement that I sometimes have trouble translating complex ideas into understandable writing.

 

You see, I have the sources, I have the evidence, I have the facts that show that civilian firearm possession results in civilian casualties. Meanwhile, I fail to see even close to my amount of evidence in the opposite direction.

You haven't provided any evidence to correlate gun possession by non-criminal civilians to civilian casualties in the USA.

 

So you can say I've got a bit of wiggle room to sling a little mud here and there.

There is never any room to sling mud, unless you are intent on violating the forum rules.

 

The key thing is, yet again, that I've addressed the issue with evidence and you, so far, have failed to do so. If you can provide an ample amount of material to prove me wrong, I will humbly accept defeat and apologize for any of my transgressions.

First off, to which issue are you referring? There are several we have discussed over the last few pages.

 

Second, your evidence is a few incidents with no correlation that I can see to any of the issues we've discussed here.

 

But if you're going to criticize me and think you can pull me apart because I made a smart-ass remark about a white stereotype and hurt your feelings, then you're going to strike out over and over.

Except that the way you did it is in violation of rule #2 of this forum. (viewtopic.php?p=13&f=18#p13) If it was even halfway funny instead of nothing but a blatant attempt at an insult towards the intelligence of people with an opinion that differs from your own, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

(btw it isn't racism if it's against white people. racism is a societal system of prejudice. You can't be a victim of racism when your race is the one running everything)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

Read #3 or #2 of the British definition. Racism can be used against anyone, regardless of who's in charge.

 

I am personally opposed to profiling and tracking in general, but not when there is a rational reason, which in my opinion is not a matter of freedom but rather that of responsibility.

 

For example, if you get a pilot licence - you accept to be bound by the Laws of the Air, you maintain your log book, you know that you must fly a certain minimum number of hours to maintain currency and that if you don't, you will need to do a mandatory check-out with an instructor before you can fly solo again and your licence may be revoked if you break these rules.

 

In the case of guns - it's similar IMHO. You exercise your right to own a weapon but with it comes additional responsibility and the granting authority has a justifiable right to monitor compliance.

 

Let's not use the emotionally charged word "gun" for a moment.

 

Imagine we are talking about a "Chemically-Actuated High-Power Kinetic Projector" device. Most people would find it perfectly reasonable and even obvious that certain professional criteria and regulations should apply to operators of such machinery, don't you think?

In many respects it seems logical, if the government didn't have any control over it. We've already seen what happens when Sheriff's offices are in control of Concealed Carry licenses. You get some counties that do it right, and you can get your license in about 3-5 weeks for a very low cost. (in SD it costs $10, takes 1 week to get your temporary, and 3 more weeks for the permanent) You also get some other counties that take 6-24 months to do the same exact background check, and costs hundreds of dollars. (two neighboring counties in CO; one will have a 3-5 week waiting period and a $50 charge, the other will charge $150 and force you to wait a minimum of 9 months) Incidentally, the Concealed Carry background check is identical to the one that firearm sellers manage to complete in under 30 minutes, just so they can sell you a gun. (they don't sell to felons, ever)

 

It's the reason that the 2nd Amendment was put in place the way it is... To prevent a corrupt or tyrannical government from restricting firearms to the general populace. As it stands currently, it has been deemed unconstitutional to require either registration or licensing to own firearms in the USA. (and that will never change unless they manage to remove the 2nd Amendment, which WILL result in civil war)

[Descriptor]

I've been reading up a bit on the subject of crime rates vs. gun ownership, and would like to mention an interesting article on the subject that I believe handles the issue fairly well, and without significant bias.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Basically, most of it comes down to issues of correlation vs. causation, as well as difficulty in collecting and comparing data due to the incredibly high number of variables present.

 

Oh, also...

 

(btw it isn't racism if it's against white people. racism is a societal system of prejudice. You can't be a victim of racism when your race is the one running everything)

And the most ignorant statement of the week award goes to...

(and seriously, you are being super childish about this)

 

Oh, btw, most of the proof you offered only holds up as circumstantial, and can hardly be considered a properly collected represented sample of data.

On the other hand, I do agree that I would like to see more sources from BTG, if not at the very least to see more representable data, and to encourage discussion over what that data might represent and how it was obtained.

[BTGBullseye]

I like that link.

 

Best we can do at this point is limit automatic firearms to those that are licenced, (in other words, trained in their use) and continue with the basic background checks that are already in place. (they might be able to put in a form of personality disorder test, but it'd probably be thrown out)

[K4_Kydure]

Since this thread doubles for just discussing guns, have you ever just want to punch someone for destroying a relic?

 

 

[Vapymid]

OMG, this is so sick. It gives me that same feeling as when Taliban were blowing up the Buddhas...

 

Regards

[Binky The Rabbit]

No no no no no no.

 

OT: I'm of the opinion that guns need to be strongly regulated, though as has been pointed out, the Black Market makes that near-impossible.

 

The right to publicly bear arms is funny - walking about carrying an M16...it's just silly. Wearing concealed arms - fair enough, but don't make a big deal of it.

 

Guns are beautiful works of engineering, but they don't give you cool-points.

 

I guess I can't say much, because I've lived in places and communities that don't require the need of domestic firearms. (we tend to solve our arguments with bottles, blades, cigarette ends and whatever part of your body you can get to come in forceful contact with theirs)

 

But eh, I don't plan on owning a gun so I guess I'm not really qualified to comment

[BTGBullseye]

Since this thread doubles for just discussing guns, have you ever just want to punch someone for destroying a relic?

 

If I ever see one of those on a range, there WILL be a range 'accident' involving a round from one of my guns turning 90° and hitting the person who made that in the leg... Twice.

[K4_Kydure]

I wish I saved the image but it got worse, there was even a C96 painted to look like Fluttershy. I honestly wouldn't give a shit if it was a worthless modern reproduction but why do it to a vintage?!

[Binky The Rabbit]

There's no way it could ever be fully restored. It's honestly every negative thing piled into one object.

[BTGBullseye]

It's honestly every negative thing piled into one object.

Agreed.

[Binky The Rabbit]

Just found this thread for Gun talk: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=5915

 

As for talking about Gun Control, the recent incident in South Carolina once again makes me despair about gun usage. It would seem that overdue child support is a capital offense.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/08/michael-slager-south-carolina-officer-walter-scott-fired

 

If the right to carry firearms by both police and citizen wants good justification, people need to know when the time is right to open fire. A situation like this is not the time.

 

Surely America is not a hostile-enough place to make firing a gun the go-to solution. I don't hate guns - I think they're beautiful works of engineering, and the evolution of firearm technology is fascinating. But to use a firearm in a situation that doesn't need it suggests you are either too trigger-happy or too easily frightened to own one.

[BTGBullseye]

The problem is that people are starting to think that a psych eval should be made for anyone that wants to carry a gun, and they point to incidents like this as evidence supporting the need for it. Police officers get screened already. Psych screening is useless. Anyone with half a brain can fool the best psych eval to either make them look like a psychopath or a model citizen.

 

The big issue isn't that people have guns, but that people exist. This condition can be removed, so gun crime and other firearm incidents will continue to occur. Changing laws will never fix the problem, only complete obliteration of the human race.

 

I would like to see mandatory firearm training for grade school children. If they know how to properly use a gun, there will be far fewer accidents. This does not mean they would be given a gun, just be trained in their safety.

[Binky The Rabbit]

I would like to see mandatory firearm training for grade school children. If they know how to properly use a gun, there will be far fewer accidents. This does not mean they would be given a gun, just be trained in their safety.

I just hope that would work.

 

The big issue isn't that people have guns, but that people exist.

That is a good point. People can make weapons out of everything. I think my main point was that I'm not saying ban guns, but instead get people to not use guns as the solution to arguments and tussles. But there will always be a percentage of the population who will do that no matter what you do.