All bout america

Well, regardless if the US Congress decides to act or not, at least our wonderful state of New York is taking the lead example role, as of a few hours ago. It was just signed into law.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16515653-new-york-passes-major-gun-control-law-first-since-newtown-massacre?lite

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Spoiler:

I'm not criticizing it subjectively, but there are a few flaws.

Private sales can't really be enforced. Such as from person to person, unless said person is selling through a gun store, which most people do, but I don't even think that's called private.

Time and time again these kind of shootings are done by mentally ill people, something which background checks don't account for the most part, since states are generally pretty unreliable in documenting people with mental disorders. This is a major problem. You could say the coffin was just put together with one nail.

This bill reminds me of California's gun laws, in which, a shooter went to a theater just recently in San Diego (I believe. It may have been Los Angeles) and injured a few people.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Private sales can't really be enforced. Such as from person to person, unless said person is selling through a gun store, which most people do, but I don't even think that's called private.

They can be enforced due to strict consequences. If you own a gun, and sell it privately without reporting it or doing checks, and then that person turns around and kills 10 people with it, then YOU should be charged for those 10 murders, along with the shooter of course. If you follow the law and report it all, then the above won't apply.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Time and time again these kind of shootings are done by mentally ill people, something which background checks don't account for the most part, since states are generally pretty unreliable in documenting people with mental disorders.

Yes, in which is why as a part of Obama's plan, the mental health system is getting a major boost (he released details today). It is a major problem, but not the only problem.

eaustinn36 wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Private sales can't really be enforced. Such as from person to person, unless said person is selling through a gun store, which most people do, but I don't even think that's called private.

They can be enforced due to strict consequences. If you own a gun, and sell it privately without reporting it or doing checks, and then that person turns around and kills 10 people with it, then YOU should be charged for those 10 murders, along with the shooter of course. If you follow the law and report it all, then the above won't apply.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Time and time again these kind of shootings are done by mentally ill people, something which background checks don't account for the most part, since states are generally pretty unreliable in documenting people with mental disorders.

Yes, in which is why as a part of Obama's plan, the mental health system is getting a major boost (he released details today). It is a major problem, but not the only problem.

Not necessarily. Just because something has strict consequences doesn't mean said person will do it no matter what. Take drug abuse for instance.

Also, ten charges of murder because I didn't background check on someone? That's pretty harsh seeing as I didn't kill ten people. That's like charging someone with murder when I sold someone a knife and they went all Scream on some guys, or charging someone with rape since I run a BDSM shop and sold some guy whips and chains and he raped a bunch of women. Sure, you can be charged with murder for conspirating with someone about it, but not if you just sold someone the item. It's not like you have control over said person.

Even still, how could you not just say 'I ran a background check on him and it seemed legit'. After all, it's my decision, whether it be bad or not. The point of the matter is that there is nothing solid about a private sale. There are too many X factors for it to be anywhere near enforceable.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:
Also, ten charges of murder because I didn't background check on someone? That's pretty harsh seeing as I didn't kill ten people. That's like charging someone with murder when I sold someone a knife and they went all Scream on some guys, or charging someone with rape since I run a BDSM shop and sold some guy whips and chains and he raped a bunch of women. Sure, you can be charged with murder for conspirating with someone about it, but not if you just sold someone the item. It's not like you have control over said person.

Well, if you don't do the check, where it is later determined that a check would have shown an obvious problem, you not doing the check essentially killed those people.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Even still, how could you not just say 'I ran a background check on him and it seemed legit'. After all, it's my decision, whether it be bad or not. The point of the matter is that there is nothing solid about a private sale. There are too many X factors for it to be anywhere near enforceable.

I see your point, but it is the better than nothing, as it would happen anyway without the law; not everyone is a non-law abiding citizen.

Dare I say, what would your suggestion to the problem be? (even though I have a feeling I already know)

i just assumed it was the constitution was ans the rule book for America

regardless the 2nd amendment just seems like a last resort when the 1st amendment get toppled and as a way to hold you gov't accountable to the people in a way

but hey i v been drinking

eaustinn36 wrote:

Desert Sleepy wrote:That's the entire point of the second amendment. The founding fathers didn't have semi-autos in mind, but they also didn't have hunting and recreational shooting in mind. For whatever reason, most people (on both sides) seem to ignore this and talk about hunting and crime statistics.

Well, not exactly, I was just focusing on the role of semi-autos for other uses. Personal defense i'm sure the fathers had in mind, but you don't need an AR, a weapon designed to mow down hundreds of people in a matter of seconds, to fend someone off. Also, recreational shooting maybe, but i'm pretty sure they hunted back then (more so for food than sport).

Been too lazy to respond, but anyway.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's what the second amendment says, to the best of my Wikipedia's knowledge. I don't think it's a stretch to conclude that "the security of a free state" had rebellions in mind. "Free" state, not safe state. Some argue that the well regulated militia refers to the National Guard, but if so, why would it say "the right of the people"? A government controlled organization is hardly the most trustworthy way to protect the freedom of the people, at least in the eyes of some rebels. They fought their own rebellion, and that's probably what they had in mind when writing this. They probably raped their slaves and did all kinds of bad shit, but they probably at least stuck to their *snicker* guns in this respect. I don't mean to be a dick or anything, but I don't think there's all that much to argue over in regards to what they meant. Times have changed of course, so I'm sure there's plenty of arguments that could be made over how necessary it still is or whether you agree with it. But really, it's not far fetched whatsoever that this is what the founding fathers had in mind. It is far fetched to think they had a modern liberal interpretation in mind over two centuries ago.

On the topic of assault weapons, I really think all the attempts to ban them is a downright bad idea. I know politics doesn't have a limited number of moves or some depleting meter like a game, but I can't help but think that there's a general "political will", i.e. desire of the people to have something done. For example, since banning assault weapons has almost no actual positive effect, but does succeed in pissing off owners and enthusiasts, I can't help but think that doing so "drains" a large amount of will. People will be less likely to continue voting for the people passing these laws.

I think a big part of why liberals seem to bring up assault weapons and gun shows is because they're afraid of being labeled racists. They don't want to admit that it's not the middle to upper class white people who get assault rifles and attend gun shows who are contributing to gun violence. They don't want to acknowledge that it's primarily street gangs made up primarily of lower class minorities who are committing gun violence. Now, I'm going to put my scared white person "Really I'm not a racist" speech in a spoiler so this wall isn't too tall:

Spoiler:

So in summary, it's not race or anything biological, it's economic situation that makes someone more likely to commit violent crime. So please don't call me racist when I say violent crime is perpetrated primarily by gangs and drug cartels, and that all the liberal talk about assault weapons and gun shows is just them being afraid of being thought of as racist.

Maybe gun shows do somehow cause weapons to make it to the streets, and if so that could be addressed alone without losing support of all other gun owners (who are needed if change is to be made). Basically, don't ban assault weapons because it doesn't actually do anything. It's just a superficial political move that'll lose votes that will be needed for actual changes that could do something. Assault weapons are extremely heavily regulated, so it's extraordinarily rare for a crime to be perpetrated by a lawful owner of one. If you want to stop these mass shootings, I say the most important steps to take is first, mental health. That could have stopped a lot of these shootings before they ever happened. What do these shooters consistently have in common? They would be described by your average person as "crazy" or "disturbed". James Holmes and Adam Lanza, for example. Both with mental health problems that are pretty obvious. Maybe they could have been treated beforehand and none of this would have happened. Maybe not, but as long as there's a chance, it's a good idea.

Another thing I'd focus on is gun regulation. Not banning, regulating. Only a batshit guy like Wayne LaPierre would think having to have a gun registered is so terrible. It shouldn't be as easy as purchasing a gun online, having it shipped to a local gun store, then picking it up and having ammunition shipped directly to your home. You should at least have to have the gun registered, and a waiting period so you don't buy one the night you need to kill your wife (waiting three days could give you time to cool down and realize a burnt pot roast isn't worth killing a loved one over). It may not have stopped Adam Lanza from stealing weapons, but it sure as shit could have stopped James Holmes from buying them. Assault rifles should be a model for gun control: They're very well regulated, difficult to get, and as a result very little crime is committed with them and only the most serious owners have them.

If you want to cut down on gun crime in general (focusing on non-mass shootings now), maybe look into how so many illegal weapons get into the country and where they come from. Could it have something to do with those famous drug cartels down south, and how much we love their drugs, and how violent the black market is, and the fact that drugs are simultaneously rampant AND on this violent black market of prohibited items? And the fact that drugs will always be rampant, because there will always be a demand for them? And the fact that so long as they're rampant (forever), this black market is going to continue being profitable? And that a profitable, unregulated (illegal) market is always going to be violently competitive (as free market as it gets)? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe I'm just a big dumb fuckstick and should shut my mouth and stop building walls. Probably won't have the will to build another wall for quite some time now. Anyway, that's my two-thousand cents.

@Sleepy - Okay, it is going to take me like a year to address all of your points (and I will), but i'll stick to the main ones that caught my eye, and come back to the other 100+ later.

1. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - Okay, here is my view on this. Back then, the law was deigned for a different time period; if you want to take the amendment right down to the letter, then I think it needs to be modified. Why? It doesn't account for modern technology. If you want to get technical, I have the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms". No where does it say firearms, just arms (spoiler alert: the following will sound crazy, and it is, but this is what the amendment technically says, seeing as new technology didn't exist back then. You might draw the line at this example as crazy, but I draw the line at AR's, and based on what you said about the law, then both not allowing AR's and this example, is illegal).

- I have the right therefore, to bear ALL arms. Arms, by relative definition, refers to any weapon. Therefore, I have the constitutional right, to own a hunting rifle, pistol, AR-15, grenades, chemical weapons, an EMP device, a tank, and a nuclear warhead or other radiation device. By your (and many's) definition and argument against my point of not forseeing modern technology, such as the AR, it is illegal for anyone to deny me possession of ANY of these weapons.

I believe also, that the 2nd was referring more so to foreign invaders (many will disagree). In the revolutionary war, the army relied heavily on militia forces to win (along with the French), so it is reasonable to believe that the founding fathers wanted to preserve a militia to prevent a foreign attack again, so that America will remain free. Even if this view is wrong, there is no way to prove it is, as all our "views" today are based solely on interpretation.

Again, I am not saying ban all guns; just the military style assault weapons, that were designed to kill humans and nothing more. You don't need a 100 round clip to fend off an attacker, or the kind of power one has (and, they aren't as maneuverable as a pistol). NO modern nation I know of, in the world, has banned all guns; they have just heavily regulated them, as you said in bold, so I don't see the issue here. Some argue that an assault weapons ban will lead to the govt oppressing them, and maybe even genocide. Well gee... I had no idea near all of the developed nation in the world were going though that right now? Better not go to Europe, or their govt will kill me.


2. You say an assault weapons ban will bring no good. Answer these questions:

- Name ONE developed nation in where an assault weapons ban that they passed, resulted in a higher murder rate?

- The US has about 11,000+ gun homicides per year (again, no nation has banned all guns, but assault weapon bans are common). Name ONE developed nation that has even just 1,000 gun deaths per year?

- Of the past 50 major shootings in the world, how many occurred in the US?

- Out of the deadliest mass shootings in the US, how many of them involved a military style assault weapon?


These 4 questions alone should point to a clear answer on the validity of your statement.



Again, i'll get to your other points later when I have more time.

eaustinn36 wrote:1. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - Okay, here is my view on this. Back then, the law was deigned for a different time period; if you want to take the amendment right down to the letter, then I think it needs to be modified. Why? It doesn't account for modern technology. If you want to get technical, I have the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms". No where does it say firearms, just arms (spoiler alert: the following will sound crazy, and it is, but this is what the amendment technically says, seeing as new technology didn't exist back then. You might draw the line at this example as crazy, but I draw the line at AR's, and based on what you said about the law, then both not allowing AR's and this example, is illegal).

- I have the right therefore, to bear ALL arms. Arms, by relative definition, refers to any weapon. Therefore, I have the constitutional right, to own a hunting rifle, pistol, AR-15, grenades, chemical weapons, an EMP device, a tank, and a nuclear warhead or other radiation device. By your (and many's) definition and argument against my point of not forseeing modern technology, such as the AR, it is illegal for anyone to deny me possession of ANY of these weapons.

I believe also, that the 2nd was referring more so to foreign invaders (many will disagree). In the revolutionary war, the army relied heavily on militia forces to win (along with the French), so it is reasonable to believe that the founding fathers wanted to preserve a militia to prevent a foreign attack again, so that America will remain free. Even if this view is wrong, there is no way to prove it is, as all our "views" today are based solely on interpretation.

Again, I am not saying ban all guns; just the military style assault weapons, that were designed to kill humans and nothing more. You don't need a 100 round clip to fend off an attacker, or the kind of power one has (and, they aren't as maneuverable as a pistol). NO modern nation I know of, in the world, has banned all guns; they have just heavily regulated them, as you said in bold, so I don't see the issue here. Some argue that an assault weapons ban will lead to the govt oppressing them, and maybe even genocide. Well gee... I had no idea near all of the developed nation in the world were going though that right now? Better not go to Europe, or their govt will kill me.

I'm no expert on late 1700's law, but I'm assuming that the equivalents back then (as close as you can get to an equivalent, at least) would be stuff like... cannons and I guess warships with cannons? And large amounts of gunpowder? I don't know. But I can't really find anything on the laws of the time. I'm going to assume though that owning a cannon or warship was at least strictly regulated, if not illegal. Obviously, however, when they said "arms" they did mean at the very least firearms. I suppose it can't be proven, but it's safe to assume they meant that anyway since they made no attempt to restrict people to swords (which would have been pretty dumb at the time, considering people needed to eat and fend off the Injuns). Just read the Declaration of Independence though. They say plenty on the need for people to overthrow their government should it get too oppressive. I think it makes their intent pretty clear, that and the fact that they were fighting their own armed rebellion at the time. I don't think this really is all that debatable. Now, if you disagree with them, that's fine, but I think what they did say was clear enough.

I get your general point, that you have to draw a line somewhere, and I'll address why I think the current lines (no missiles and grenades and shit, but rifles and pistols and shotguns are fine) are fine (but require further regulation) later on when I get to the crime section. Obviously no single person should have access to ICBMs and tanks, and no sane person would make the argument that they should. But if we're going by the standards of the day, the military used presumably the most modern muskets and pistols possible, and citizens could presumably own them too. Now the military uses assault rifles, and civilians can too, provided they're fairly determined, have spare cash and time and meet all legal qualifications. Assault rifles CAN be owned, so we still CAN have the modern equivalent, but it's wisely been very well regulated.

On the oppressive government part. Nearly all the developed nations in the world have well regulated guns, and yet have no oppressive government. If you go to Europe, despite the gun regulation, the government will not kill you. That's all true enough. But we're not like Europe and the rest of the developed world. We're probably under the most heavy surveillance of any developed nation, and we're also probably the only developed nation where people can LEGALLY be detained indefinitely without charge or trial. Corporations can give unlimited amounts of money to influence our "representatives". We've got an extremely profitable and sometimes privatized prison system, plenty of people to fill it, and more on the way due to our militarized police fighting a war against often non-violent drug users. Police who, by the way, investigate cases of police corruption and judge them internally. Police who want it to be illegal to film them, despite this only having negative consequences. And now the Supreme Court's latest colossal fuck-up means anyone arrested can legally be visual cavity searched, regardless of whether they're actually going to jail or if there's a good reason for it or not. Keep in mind that police have a tendency to arrest people whenever they don't like them on charges that are later dropped (if you're lucky), a phenomenon known as "Contempt of cop". Who's going to want to protest anything with that in effect? Who's going to want to stand up to misbehaving police officers? Cops can literally haul you off to jail for no reason at will for you to be cavity searched, and it's perfectly legal (and don't expect them to listen if you talk about how unjust the arrest was. The offending officer will be cleared by internal affairs and suffer no consequences). The government can haul you off to a remote island where for whatever reason the Geneva Conventions don't apply and have you imprisoned and tortured indefinitely. All they need is a reason that they agree is sufficient (the people have no say in what's sufficient), which is to say, anything they want.

This isn't like New Zealand, where the Prime Minister will personally apologize to those affected by police misconduct, or the UK where dey 'ave to wurry abou' 'ow da bludey fook is da Royal Fam'ly gettin' their finances? Or Denmark, where police have the strange, superhuman ability of not shooting to kill, the ability to fire one shot into the leg of a stationary person instead of having to shoot them some 50 times. Or Germany, where the seemingly benevolent military demos an underwater repair thing instead of funding terrible movies (couldn't find that video) and being thought of worldwide as a modern empire. The problems listed above are just a few of many, and they're all deeply disturbing. Call me crazy, but I'd say even half of that shit is cause for alarm. Maybe you're among the eighteen or so percent of people that has faith in our legislative system, but I'm not counting on much of that changing for the better any time soon. I'm not advocating violent revolution, but I think it's important that we not have that option taken from us. I'm sure plenty of people over the last century who have seen their country take a major turn from the worse never thought it could get so bad. Just take a look at anti-Muslim sentiment now. Hordes of people angrily trying to stop Muslims from building a Mosque in the general area of ground zero, under the pretext that they're the same religion as the perpetrators of an attack over a decade ago? Should we also restrict restaurants selling middle eastern food, or people with five'o'clock shadow from venturing near ground zero? After all, that is the exact same type of facial hair one of the perpetrators had. It's ridiculous. There's been mosque burnings, even. What next, our own version of Kristallnacht? We shouldn't assume that the US can only get better from here, or that it's inconceivable that things could get exponentially worse.

eaustinn36 wrote:2. You say an assault weapons ban will bring no good. Answer these questions:

- Name ONE developed nation in where an assault weapons ban that they passed, resulted in a higher murder rate?

- http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
There's some statistics on the US's murder rate. Surely enough, homicides spiraled downhill around 1993, right before the Assault Weapons Ban. After it expired in 2004 homicide... stayed stable, as it had during the ban since around 2000. No increase, as logic would dictate had assault weapons been responsible for the high murder rate. Just look at what people concluded after the bill expired:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban




So, the Center for Disease Control, the Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice and even the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence all found that the ban had almost no effect. Why? let's look again at that Department of Justice report.



Looks like handguns are disproportionately being used in homicides compared to everything else, with weapons other than handguns (except knives) staying steady before, during, and after the ban. What kind of handguns would the Assault Weapons Ban cover?


The expensive kind, the kind only a serious enthusiast would likely be able to get ahold of. And I doubt it would be hard to find a pistol that didn't have those features that would be just as effective.

eaustinn36 wrote:- The US has about 11,000+ gun homicides per year (again, no nation has banned all guns, but assault weapon bans are common). Name ONE developed nation that has even just 1,000 gun deaths per year?

- Proportionately, Canada. I'll explain that later. It might change for the better here if we didn't have such well armed gangs. Does the UK have this going on directly south of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
It's a veritable bloodbath. Take note that they supply 90 percent of the drugs here.

eaustinn36 wrote:- Of the past 50 major shootings in the world, how many occurred in the US?

- The majority. An assault weapons ban would improve this... how? It didn't stop the Columbine massacre in 1999 (mid-ban). One of the weapons used in the Columbine massacre?



Looks like the bans couldn't stop a couple suburban teenagers, so how exactly would it affect crime?

eaustinn36 wrote:- Out of the deadliest mass shootings in the US, how many of them involved a military style assault weapon?

- I found a top ten list of the deadliest shootings in the US.

1. Virginia Tech: Two semi-automatic handguns. (32 killed)
2. Luby's Massacre: Two semi-automatic handguns. (23 killed)
3. San Ysidro Massacre: Semi-automatic Uzi, pump-action shotgun, semi-automatic handgun. (21 killed)
4. University of Texas Massacre: Bolt-action rifle, pump-action rifle, two semi-automatic pistols, revolver, semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic shotgun, and knives. Took place in 1966 and primarily used the bolt-action rifle, though a few were killed with the shotgun as he entered the tower. (16 killed)
5. Oklahoma Post Office: Three semi-automatic pistols. (14 killed)
6. Columbine: Semi-automatic pistol, semi-automatic rifle, pump shotgun and double barreled shotgun. (13 killed)
7. Birminghamton shootings: Two semi-automatic handguns. (13 killed)
8. Fort Hood shooting: Semi-automatic pistol and a revolver. (13 killed)
9. 13 killed in New Jersey in 1949. Semi-automatic pistol. Perpetrator was found insane in 1948.
10. Aurora shooting: Pump-action shotgun, semi-automatic rifle, two semi-automatic pistols. (12 killed)

That depends on what you mean by "Assault Weapon". Going by what it's meant to mean (a fully automatic weapon), zero were used in the top ten deadliest shootings. Going by the politicized meaning of it, meaning any scary looking gun with features similar to those found on military weapons, 2 or possibly 3, depending on what features the perpetrator in the McDonald's massacre's Uzi had.

So essentially, actual assault weapons weren't used in any of the largest shootings. Only semi-automatic weapons and pistols. And I've already mentioned that semi-automatic weapons need better regulation than none at all. So once again, if you want to cut down on spree killers, psychological exams might help. That ultimately won't even put a dent in gun violence though, since by and large gun violence is gang related. While I still think registration, a waiting period and a psychological evaluation would be good ideas, I don't think any type of ban will have a very substantial effect on gun violence.

On the subject of bans, however, Mexico has very strict gun laws. How're they doing on the murder front?


Oh.

Let's look closer to home: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

Take note that California and New York, both well known for their gun control, have 1865 or the country's about 11,000 gun murders under their belt. 1260 with handguns. With rifles? 50. Nationwide, rifles killed 323 people, and shotguns killed 356, only 679 out of 11,000. In the UK, there were 58 gun murders in 2011. The population is about 62.6 million people. The US's population is about 311.6 million people. They have approximately one fifth of our population, so adjusting for their population, they'd have 290 firearm homicides. Canada has 34.5 million people, one ninth of our population. Adjusting their 173 gun homicides, they'd have 1,557 (there's your 1,000). Makes the disparity seem a lot less huge, though that is without pistols involved, but it's also without gang violence with shotguns and rifles taken into account. The UK and Canada don't have nearly as much gang violence as we do, and don't have huge and dangerous cartels running in guns and drugs directly from their south.

So basically what I'm saying is: The black market for drugs is responsible for the high murder rate now, just like the black market for liquor was responsible in the 30s. Registration and other such measures would be reasonable and might have a slight affect on gun violence, or at the very least would lead to more responsible owners, but by and large it's a waste of political power right now when a huge portion of voters oppose it. There are a lot more effective measures that could be taken, but since guns are an easy target, they're in the spotlight.

On a more positive note, doing all the research and such for debates like these will mean you'll probably be the most knowledgeable person you know on whatever topic you're debating. So it's not a waste of time, it's a learning opportunity.

(not going to quote or it might break the forum)

1. I see your point, but again, there is no proof. If the modern technology that exists today, existed then, the founding fathers might have saw different. Since there is no way for either of us to prove our point, and this aspect of the discussion is going in circles, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


2. On the "oppressive government" part, I agree with that near completely. Those are all major problems, BUT, I never said guns were the only problem. Guns are only 1 step out of all the other stuff out there, such as the drug war and climate change, but that is a different discussion; i'm focusing on the one (gun) issue here.

The thing is though, is that this is a democracy, not a dictatorship. EVERY government official in office today, is in office, because people like us voted for them; if we don't like them, or find them too "oppressive", vote them out, and elect people who see things your way (maybe Jesse Ventura, i'm sure a few would love his conspiracy stuff). The only problem right now, is that things are so divided, the other 45% of the country is guaranteed to be pissed 24/7; you can't please everyone. Our president, we choose. Our supreme court, we indirectly choose (pres. appoints them, but we appoint pres). House and Senate, we choose. The whole need for revolution thing is plain anarchy. It is no secret I wish we were more like Europe; why? They are statistically better in most things, from life expectancy to education standards, and to gun murder rates. I once again agree with those points you brought up (such as the Muslim part), but those issues I feel are distracting from the hot-button issue at hand. And yeah, the supreme court did fuck up on a few things, but many will argue what the differences are (I hate the "superPAC election" one). My point is, is that if the government gets more "powerful", it is because at least 50% of Americans want it to be; look who won the election: Mr. Big-Govt Obama, who wants gun reform; America has spoken (and no i'm not saying "guns" was the reason he won, but gun control has always been a liberal platform for a long time).


3. When I said "Name ONE developed nation in where an assault weapons ban that they passed, resulted in a higher murder rate?", I was referring to a non-US nation that still has it in effect today; all of them show a drop in gun crime. Also, our Assault ban was neither a fail or success (the crime rate didn't drop or fall), partially because it wasn't enforced as much as it should have been. Other nations have done it, and it worked, so following their example isn't that farfetched. Also, I agree handguns are also an issue, but that extends to another problem of "too many guns in the system". The guns per person in the US is astronomical, so it would be a tough road to fix; you "ban" assault rifles, and there will still be many in circulation, so removing all of them will take ions. Think of it like our affairs with the Middle East; went over there, and pissed them off, and now they want to 9/11 us more than ever; going to take a long time, even if we end our interventionist policies, to repair relations. So, for handguns, what do you suggest? For me, the handgun issues are solved by stricter regulations like universal background checks, rather than bans, because, handguns actually serve a purpose other than moving down people in combat.


4. For the "The US has about 11,000+ gun homicides per year (again, no nation has banned all guns, but assault weapon bans are common). Name ONE developed nation that has even just 1,000 gun deaths per year?" part, yes, if you population adjust, one or two nation break the 1,000 barrier, but the point of that question was to demonstrate the vast difference. Yeah, 1,557 people isn't as big a difference as 50, but, using the higher number, our murder rate is still more than quintuple (5 times more) than the next developed nation on the list, and to me, that is an issue. You earlier explained that there is no arguing the 2nd amendment, but, there is also no arguing (for developed nations), we have the LOOSEST gun laws, HIGHEST gun murder rate, while Japan is known for the STRICTEST gun laws, and LOWEST murder rate; this is a fact many opponents seem to dodge or weave around, when it speaks volumes to me. By nation, with the occasional 2-3% inconsistency, there is a direct correlation between nations with tighter gun laws, and lower gun murder rates. Also, before you re-bring up Mexico: they are an undeveloped nation, so you can't compare, unless you want to thrown Iraq or Somalia into the mix. As for the drug thing, yeah the drug come from there to the US, but the guns go the other way; the gun problem alone (drug issues is different discussion) is an internal issue, that can't, for majority, be blamed on a neighbor.


5. For the "Of the past 50 major shootings in the world, how many occurred in the US?" part, i'm guessing there was a typo or you agreed with me. Assuming a typo, again, bans need to be enforced. That ban had a short life, and given the amount of weapons in the syste, you can't just implement the ban, and expect instant results; it doesn't work like that, and things need time (along with enforcing the law, by removing the certain weapons in question from the system).


6. Finally, for the last bit, for many shootings, an semi-auto assault weapon, like the AR, is a popular choice. Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Texas, and others involve primarily those weapons. What is also left out, is that while in the "top 10" many weapons were listed, the AR type ones were primarily used. Especially relevant with the Sandy Hook shooting where 26 died, where there were also pistols, the AR saw more than 90% of the action. Secondly, of course i'm not referring to full automatic guns, they've been banned for a long time, and after enough time to work, you don't see them in crime anymore. I consider an semi-auto AR to be an assault weapon, so give that law enough time, and it will work too. It has worked in every other nation to lower murder rates, so why not here?

As for the Mexico part, see the above (addressed it there).

As for the states one, of course the state results are going to be different, because it is all in the same country. You could buy a weapon across the state border, and drive right across! Statistics also show that gun crime is highest in dense cities, and last I checked, NYC is one of the, if not the, biggest cities in the US. Saying NY has high gun crime doesn't mean much also, considering that it was always high throughout history, even before the gun laws went into effect. A federal law is the only way; the only way state gun laws would work alone, is if every state put up border patrol from all directions (good luck funding that...). You say "but by and large it's a waste of political power right now when a huge portion of voters oppose it"; well, actually, a near equal amount of Americans support it (mainly the liberal side), so anyone saying that the vast majority of American oppose it, is pure propaganda.

_________________________________________________________

I think it is clear where you stand on the assault weapon ban, but, lets expand to the other main points I personally want (and coincidentally, Obama):

1. Military Style assault weapons ban
2. Ban on high capacity magazines (do you really need 100 rounds?)
3. Stricter regulation including universal background checks
4. Increased funding for Mental Health clinics (we dont really care for the mentally ill in US..)

What say you on 2-4?

eaustinn36 wrote:I think it is clear where you stand on the assault weapon ban, but, lets expand to the other main points I personally want (and coincidentally, Obama):

1. Military Style assault weapons ban
2. Ban on high capacity magazines (do you really need 100 rounds?)
3. Stricter regulation including universal background checks
4. Increased funding for Mental Health clinics (we dont really care for the mentally ill in US..)

What say you on 2-4?

1. I wouldn't say completely ban, but regulate to the same level as assault rifles. Very few people actually own assault rifles, because they're fairly difficult to get and expensive, so that might cut down on crimes with them.
2. Depends on what constitutes high capacity, but I don't think banning 100 round magazines is a bad idea. I think restricting handguns to eight bullets is harsh though, since most handguns seem to hold more than that in an unmodified state, but I would agree with banning, for example, the 32 round extended pistol magazines. It's not practical in any way (couldn't be concealed and carried, probably a bit unwieldy for home defense), so could only potentially be used for entertainment purposes (or crime), so I don't think it's a big deal to just ask people to instead reload more often rather than having 32 round magazines.
3. Absolutely. A background check should be standard for purchasing any gun.
4. Of course. Even if spree killers weren't a problem, it's still a good idea.

Erik or Eaustin36
due to the fact that you have never discharged let along handled a fire arm I don’t think you are qualified to say that a type of gun should be banned. Shotguns on the other hand can have up to 10 rounds in a tube, if that is in pellets you have a possibility of killing a “FUCK TON” of people. But then again cars kill people should we ban them, Fire kills people how we ban fire and drugs kill people which is already illegal but people still get them. The AR-15 bill is a “Feel-Safe” bill because if someone wanted to kill someone they could by using explosives or hazardous materials. There are a lot more ways to kill people shooting. The problem is not the weapons it’s the people. We as a nation need to have Mental hospitals to send all the crazy’s too.
I would also like to say that cars kill a shitload more people than guns do. In 2010 32,885 people were killed in car accidents in the US ( http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf ). Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths. So cars are worse than guns.

a helmet baby. wrote:due to the fact that you have never discharged let along handled a fire arm I don’t think you are qualified to say that a type of gun should be banned.

I can't say they are bad / should be banned because I never did it?

I never robbed a bank... so I can't say that is illegal?
I've never murdered anyone... so I can't say murdering is bad until I try it?
I've never smoked before... so I can't say cigarette's cause cancer?

I could go on and on; that logic is majorly flawed.

a helmet baby. wrote:Shotguns on the other hand can have up to 10 rounds in a tube, if that is in pellets you have a possibility of killing a “FUCK TON” of people.

You can fire an AR faster than a shotgun, and the "pellets" thing isn't good long range.

a helmet baby. wrote:But then again cars kill people should we ban them, Fire kills people how we ban fire and drugs kill people which is already illegal but people still get them.

A gun such as an AR has a primary purpose of killing other human beings. Lots of other things can kill people sure, but they have practical purposes to justify them: a knife can cut a loaf of bread, a car can transport you around quicker than walking, and fire keeps you warm during the cold seasons. As for drugs, many drugs are illegal, just poorly enforced, so I don't see your point on the last one.

a helmet baby. wrote:The AR-15 bill is a “Feel-Safe” bill because if someone wanted to kill someone they could by using explosives or hazardous materials. There are a lot more ways to kill people shooting.

Yes there are more ways, but shooting is the easiest, quickest, and most convenient. You don't see many "mass bombings" here in the US, relative to shootings; it's not even close. It can't be called a "feel safe" bill when nearly every other developed country in the entire world is physical proof you are wrong.

a helmet baby. wrote:The problem is not the weapons it’s the people. We as a nation need to have Mental hospitals to send all the crazy’s too.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, am I right? Well, true, but guns are a tool to dramatically make the killing of people more efficient, easy, and less "up close and personal". Try killing 1+ people per second with a knife or hammer, and tell me how that goes for you (don't really, but understand the point).

And, I agree with you. If you actually read my previous post to this one, you would see that Mental health is one of my 4 key things I want reformed.

a helmet baby. wrote:I would also like to say that cars kill a shitload more people than guns do. In 2010 32,885 people were killed in car accidents in the US ( http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf ).

Yes, you mentioned that above. Again, cars serve a practical purpose. If you want to argue "self-defense" is a practical purpose to, then fine, but that's what handguns / smart guns are for; you don't need a 100 round AR-15 to fend off a couple of attackers; it is complete overkill.

a helmet baby. wrote:Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths. So cars are worse than guns.

And 11,078 is nearly 10,000 higher than the next developed nation, that statistic only proves my point further, thanks. And again for the car part, see the above.



I'd recommend you read the previous pots from me (and to be fair, others) to see what has already been said, before you jump into the discussion so quickly.

I just done get it, you had the blueprint for a good society that was supposed to be the basis for a free society, granted there where hiccups and nothing is perfect but i mean come one you guys had a fucking rule book and you ripped the motherfucker up, now whatever happens to you privileged fucks affects the rest of the goddamn world. (harsh i understand). Regardless no one trusts the gov't to do the right thing because that's the social norm now. Lets just go back on all of it fuck it !

all in all if you guys are gonna fuck up your precious rule book, why didnt we start with the first amendment (oh wait its gone) (didnt really fight for that one did you) so fuckit just allow the second one to go cause honestly who needs a rule book when one man makes them up for you. Why do we need guns to defend ourselves from gang bangers when the police will protect us. What happens when it all becomes too much. maybe will stand up maybe will fight back agaisnt the gov't in our lives ...... oh wait you guys said fuck the rule book. now your play-in by there rules (also condecending)

TBH iv been drinking so half this shit doesnt even matter or make sense, theres my bullshit two cents

i just dont get it you have rights then you slowly loose them and then say fuck it ill support the taking away of my rights (i could be wrong but in lamens terms its seems like it)

KZ Powned wrote:Why do we need guns to defend ourselves from gang bangers when the police will protect us.

People have plenty of reason to fear calling the police for one, but they're also not there when you need them. Just ask that lady who got murdered while on the phone with 9-1-1.

Wasn't going to respond to that single comment, but I found a more adequate reason to post when I happened upon this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/03/newtown-shooting-video-game-buyback

Sad that they've bought into Wayne LaPierre's idiotic bullshit.

Yet another reason why our electoral college system (and election process) needs reform.

Desert Sleepy wrote:

KZ Powned wrote:Why do we need guns to defend ourselves from gang bangers when the police will protect us.

People have plenty of reason to fear calling the police for one, but they're also not there when you need them. Just ask that lady who got murdered while on the phone with 9-1-1.

Wasn't going to respond to that single comment, but I found a more adequate reason to post when I happened upon this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/03/newtown-shooting-video-game-buyback

Sad that they've bought into Wayne LaPierre's idiotic bullshit.

I think i was being sarcastic about that point but i agree with you, seconds count and the police take 15 mins

KZ Powned wrote:

Desert Sleepy wrote:

KZ Powned wrote:Why do we need guns to defend ourselves from gang bangers when the police will protect us.

People have plenty of reason to fear calling the police for one, but they're also not there when you need them. Just ask that lady who got murdered while on the phone with 9-1-1.

Wasn't going to respond to that single comment, but I found a more adequate reason to post when I happened upon this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/03/newtown-shooting-video-game-buyback

Sad that they've bought into Wayne LaPierre's idiotic bullshit.

I think i was being sarcastic about that point but i agree with you, seconds count and the police take 15 mins

15min? On a good day maybe.

The average police response time is less than ten minutes, depending on locale and situations at the time. For instance, villages in Western Alaska may have to wait an entire day for police to arrive in force, whereas in most cities the response time can be anywhere from seconds to, as I said before, no more than ten minutes.

There are of course isolated incidents of police not arriving for longer than thirty minutes. These situations can happen if for instance your correct address isn't in the phone book (which happens more often than one would think.)

The best security of course is yourself, and not having to rely on police response time. This ISN'T encouraging vigilantism. Who would even try robbing a house in America though anyway? There's a least a 1/2 chance that there's a trigger happy angry husband/white guy/black guy/300lb muscle man/300lb slab of fat that really wants to murder something.

Many people say to always keep your guns in lock boxes, or safes, or in high places to keep children from playing with them. My alternative is to store the weapon somewhere hidden, but easily accessible and partially disassembled. Most people, exempting police officers and soldiers, don't know how to put a handgun together in a few seconds like I can from practice. Children most definitely are not going to put it together and be able to use it, they'll naturally run away from something they think they broke, and the weapon is ready for use in a few seconds. Three handguns are in different parts of the house in said state.

Why are people all over the place turning in their damn guns anyway at these buybacks? There are no fewer bad guys than there were the day before Newtown's school shooting. No opportunistic petty burglar is turning over a new leaf because of it.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Why are people all over the place turning in their damn guns anyway at these buybacks? There are no fewer bad guys than there were the day before Newtown's school shooting. No opportunistic petty burglar is turning over a new leaf because of it.

Don't they get paid money for them? I'm assuming most people aren't turning over all their guns, just the ones they no longer use and would prefer some extra cash over.

eaustinn36 wrote:Yet another reason why our electoral college system (and election process) needs reform.

On the second video:
>Illinois
>Hoosiers

ALRIGHT COME ON

Super Mega King wrote:On the second video:
>Illinois
>Hoosiers

ALRIGHT COME ON

Yes he added a caption about that; missed by 1 border.

Super Mega King wrote:

eaustinn36 wrote:Yet another reason why our electoral college system (and election process) needs reform.

On the second video:
>Illinois
>Hoosiers

ALRIGHT COME ON

You call yourselves Hoosiers? O_o

Why?

Meatshield718 wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

eaustinn36 wrote:Yet another reason why our electoral college system (and election process) needs reform.

On the second video:
>Illinois
>Hoosiers

ALRIGHT COME ON

You call yourselves Hoosiers? O_o

Why?

No one knows the real reason why. Folk from Indiana call themselves Hoosiers, and it's always been called the Hoosier State.

Hoosier (pron.: /ˈhuːʒər/) is the official demonym for a resident of the U.S. state of Indiana.

The etymology of hoosier is unclear, but it has been used since at least 1830.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

The best security of course is yourself, and not having to rely on police response time. This ISN'T encouraging vigilantism. Who would even try robbing a house in America though anyway? There's a least a 1/2 chance that there's a trigger happy angry husband/white guy/black guy/300lb muscle man/300lb slab of fat that really wants to murder something.

Many people say to always keep your guns in lock boxes, or safes, or in high places to keep children from playing with them. My alternative is to store the weapon somewhere hidden, but easily accessible and partially disassembled. Most people, exempting police officers and soldiers, don't know how to put a handgun together in a few seconds like I can from practice. Children most definitely are not going to put it together and be able to use it, they'll naturally run away from something they think they broke, and the weapon is ready for use in a few seconds. Three handguns are in different parts of the house in said state.

Why are people all over the place turning in their damn guns anyway at these buybacks? There are no fewer bad guys than there were the day before Newtown's school shooting. No opportunistic petty burglar is turning over a new leaf because of it.

All of this.

That is definitely the best way to store one for home defense though. If its in a lockbox for home defense, you might not always have that key on you, and in that case you're fucked.