|
Sucrose posted:. And it's stupid to advocate for banning handguns when semi-automatic assault rifles are legal. 1. There is no such thing. 2. Pistols kill way way way more people.
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I have a compromise solution that I think will satisfy all parties. I propose that guns are to be made legal except for white, able-bodied dudes, who should have no such privileges except if they can prove before a competent tribunal that they're hella scrawny. And I mean really scrawny, not just goonishly flabby and weak. Statistically, I think you'll find this isn't the demographic killing people.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Are you seriously trying to take the tack that 11,208 people dying of one preventable cause in a single year isn't a big deal?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Except for the part where we did that and things got a great deal worse. What do you think would happen if the US tried a blanket ban? There is a massive supply of them. A good part of the population would (perhaps rightly) see the government as pissing all over the constitution and wouldn't comply. Enforcement costs would be staggering. quote:I hope you aren't going to try to argue that owning guns is an addiction like drinking booze. Do you really think there were enough people medically addicted to alcohol to keep bootleggers in business? paragon1 posted:Oh wait, cancer is killing a shitload of people, guess we can't do anything about car safety! We only have finite resources to throw at problems. If a given amount of $$ spent on cancer research will save 100x as many people as car safety, than yes we should prioritize. on the left posted:America doesn't need to ban booze, just progressively tax it more and more and attack producers with ever-more-stringent regulations. Engineer it out of society through taxation like it is pretty successfully doing with cigarettes. Once a cigarette is smoked, it's gone. With minimal maintenance a firearm will work a century later. How are you going to tax the 300 million guns already in existence, when you don't know for sure where they even are? tumblr.txt fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:So hypothetically, how many people need to die from guns every year to convince you that some resources should be spent restricting access to guns? Do you have any specific proposals in mind?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Severely restricting who has the right to own a handgun and how many are made would be a good start, since they aren't intended for hunting use and most suicides and murders with firearms are done with those. So - in your world, who gets the right to own a handgun? How is this enforced?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Bullets? No one is saying this would happen overnight or should be attempted to be done in a year. But a long draw down and restrictions to manufacturing seem pretty reasonable to me. The problem with ammunition control is only a small amount is needed to cause great harm, but target shooters tend to own and use a huge amount. At the range I might fire a few hundred shots. I will buy .22 rounds by the box of 500 as it's cheaper that way. Each individual round is dirt cheap in the scheme of things. If a ban on ammunition was looming some people (not me of course) would gleefully go on a buying spree. Their hoard of ammunition, formerly worth maybe 50c a pop, would later be worth a fortune on the black market. It would only take a small percentage of people to decide to capitalize on that to ensure a steady supply for decades.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:The military, some police, maybe security guards? I'd have to be convinced of anyone else needing them. It is enforced by having a grace period for people without the proper permits to turn over their handguns (in return for some compensation), after which anyone found in possession of a handgun has that weapon seized and is charged as they would be for any other crime. Gun dealers will only be allowed to sell to people with the proper permit. That's actually harsher than  . So, no Target Shooters, even with waiting periods and a police background check? Pistol shooting is an Olympic Sport. What about a former police officer, retired honorably, who has carried a firearm for years? What about a Doctor with a spotless criminal record, who has received credible threats to her life, and is willing to undertake a training course? Why security guards? If they're guarding money, why is defense of property worth more than people? If they're guarding celebrities or politicians, why should someone who can afford to hire guards be effectively protected by handguns, but dirt-poor Joe Smith with a psycho stalker isn't?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Maybe, but they are the demographic that can call the police without a significant risk of making the situation worse for themselves, and therefore don't need guns unlike women and minorities. I've had a relative call the police when a nut tried to smash her door down. It took about 15 minutes for them to arrive. A lot can happen in 15 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Take your pick: This happened in my state of Queensland. You need a "Permit to Acquire" to get a new firearm, even though you may have already passed 2 lots of waiting periods (for your license and then for your first rifle) and already have a gun. By law the waiting period is 1 day. The government department in charge of such things decided doing the paperwork was too hard, and permits and licenses dragged out to 6 months or so. Gunshops were in real danger of going out of business. The government could not be compelled to hurry up as the law did not state a minimum processing time. Strangely, after the next government got elected, the times dropped to 3-4 days.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Giving regular people a right to own things that only exist to kill other people seems like an incredibly stupid idea.  Instead it is the most popular cartridge by far. For every bullet used to kill someone a million times more are used to put a hole in paper. You could probably use those numbers to say the primary purpose of a car is to run someone over.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:Actually up until a few years ago I was assured by law that the police would be very interested in apprehending individuals who decided to walk around in public with a concealed weapon, instead of "training" them and giving them a piece of plastic that says they can just do that
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
here is an interesting blog giving examples of homemade firearms. Consider many were developed over a century ago and machinery has only gotten easier to use since then. We now have CAD, CNC, laser cutters and eventually 3D printers. Oh, and the Internet. Guns just aren't that hard to make if you have any skill with metalworking. There are a lot of people, both hobbyists and professionals, who have the skills and equipment to supply criminals with firearms if needed. Of course this is not necessary when the country is already saturated with firearms. tumblr.txt fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:why is killing people necessary in today's america? there are many obvious ways to secure a border or make the securing of it much more manageable, none of which involve primarily guns
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:A regulatory system where every It's not the AR-15s causing the problems tho.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 14:38
|
|
can buy a new AR-15 with about as much difficulty as it would take to buy a new TV is one where there is going to be a high level of gun violence. That white suburbanites do not bear the brunt of the problem of gun violence that they enable politically is not really a defense.
|
nopantsjack posted:Giving regular people a right to own things that only exist to kill other people seems like an incredibly stupid idea. tumblr.txt posted:If guns "only existed to kill other people" no-one would make any rifles in 22lr. mugrim posted:This point is completely incorrect and clearly meant to appeal to the moronic "Hehe, 22 just bounces off leather and can't do poo poo" dick measuring tough guys love to do (though I would not accuse you of being that tough guy, but rather just buying the BS internet tough guys put out about 22's because occasionally their penetration with the first shot is stopped). The name of the game with criminal weapons is either cheap, disposable, and small (ie, 22, 25, 32, 9mm) or so common that they're easy to steal. I've lived in poor rural areas where people (illegally) hunt deer and boar with .22s (both WMR and LR). You don't buy a 1000 dollar handgun just to have to toss it a couple weeks in after you shoot someone. You buy stolen guns or you get a lovely low caliber gun from whatever source you can. You have missed my point. I never said that .22 rounds can't kill people. They can, but so can a sharpened stick. They are nowhere near optimal for the job. The original comment by Nopantsjack was that guns "only existed to kill other people". Let's pretend you are the lead designer at Deathstick Industries, and it's your job to make the MurderGun9000 rifle, designed for the sole purpose of killing people. Given a bazillion choices why would you pick 22lr as the cartridge of choice? It's not like it's going to cost more to make it in .22 magnum which has marginally higher lethality and still negligible recoil. There are plenty of low recoil cartridges that would job the job way better than a 22lr. So, as a firearms designer, why would you make the MurderGun9000 fire 22lrs, when it's sole purpose is to kill people? tumblr.txt fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Because they're cheaper and still get the job done for less cost and more people can then use them. For a lot less you could buy cheap ammo in bulk and go nuts. Buying one really expensive gun and a small assortment of expensive ammo doesn't seem like the best way to kill as many people as you can. Indeed as a serial killer saving maybe $20 in ammunition costs for my murder spree is a huge priority.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Success! We have implemented a comprehensive system for screening deranged and potentially dangerous individuals from owning firearms. Question one: Do you feel the need to own multiple deadly weapons in case you ever need to kill your ill-defined political enemies Thanks for the perfect example of why some people are opposed to additional checks on prospective firearm owners - they will be corrupted so only the "right" sort of people will pass.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Having the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to purchase them. The right to Free Speech doesn't mean you have the Right to own a computer, pencil or pens, or to have anyone write what you are saying down. If you say something the government doesn't like, expect to be prohibited from owning any communication equipment. The right to Protection from Unreasonable Search & Seizures doesn't prevent a "did not co-operate with the police Tax". The right to a Trial by Jury doesn't prevent the Government allowing jurors to opt-out, and setting onerous requirements so most potential jurors do so. With an hour of cleverness I'm sure we could use clever wording tricks to negate the intent of most of the Bill of Rights. quote:If a responsible gun owner wants a hunting rifle to hunt, they should clearly be allowed to do so. But if a guy who's idea of gun safety is pulling out his gun when someone grabs their arm wants to get a gun because they want to start killing people in defense of their guns. Maybe that guy shouldn't get that purchase. Who determines who is a "responsible gun owner"? Criminal history, or is the Gut Feeling of police officers enough? Also Neubot, just to make sure I understood your earlier post correctly: do you believe a gun manufacturer would design a rifle intended purely to kill people (and have no other purpose, not target shooting, not hunting, purely killing people) & then chamber it in 22lr? Because it would save spree killers a small amount of money?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
The moron is going to jail & nobody got hurt - sounds like the systems works.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Thread is now correctly rated 'crap'.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:I'm going to cut off your string of nonsense right here. The courts have generally ruled that the government cannot restrict one of your constitutional rights to the extent that it is de facto impossible to exercise it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't care about guns but could someone explain to me why the people who love the military and police the most are always, always people that love to talk about how they'd overthrow the government (i.e., murder military and police) if necessary? But they never talk about ever actually having to kill pigs? You need to hang around some more terrible gun people.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:One argument is that there are so many guns already, so gun control is pointless. But this a problem *created by the presence of guns* in the first place -- so the argument doesn't hold much water. Unless you have a time machine and can go back and prevent those 300 million guns getting out there - it absolutely does hold water. There is no point debating what should have happened 50 years ago. We need to consider the current situation when debating what, if any, action should be taken RE gun control.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
Compromise means both sides get something, not "it's OK, we'll only ban some stuff this time". Something like expanded background checks in exchange for easy access to suppressors would be interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 12:03
|
|