[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

This is because the Constitution already regulates firearms. And the Framers felt that ensuring the populace was able to a) participate in the common defense and b) stand as a group politically in cases of government overstepping its limits. Yes, the Framers did think in those terms. And let's remember that in the late 18th Century the term "regulated" was used to refer to training as well as "controlled".

Its not terribly specific in its regulation though is it? And guns today are a very different beast compared with the day it was written. This seems like a sufficient reason to revisit those regulations even if they were quite specific.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I used practical examples because you used emotional arguments. Yes, bad people use firearms to do bad things. But bad people also use knives, baseball bats, chain saws, and more items to do bad things. Guns aren't special in any way except that they allow a person to have an effect at a distance. So do cars when a bad person jams down the accelerator into a crowd of people.

But how often does that happen compared to the number of people who go on shooting sprees?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Your idea of recreation may not encompass the same things I find recreational, but that's OK. I like hiking, photography, reading, and all sorts of other things. I also like dealing with mechanical things, and I'm quite interested in the interface between the human body and mechanical items. THAT is what target shooting is about, by the way (at least for me): controlling my body sufficiently to be able to put holes in the target where I want, and that's not a trivial thing.

People don't tend to kill many other people with hiking boots or cameras or books though do they? I understand why target shooting is fun/interesting. I have enjoyed it myself. You don't really need to own a gun to do that though, it could be done in licensed premises with better security than the average household. In such a case you are not trading those innocent lost lives for the freedom to shoot targets, only for the freedom to do it in your own back yard.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Suggesting that guns should be banned because some people do bad things with them is exactly the same logical argument as "alcohol should be banned because some people do bad things with alcohol."

The other side of this argument is that if inanimate objects or substances are not to blame and shouldn't be banned then why are you not advocating legalisation of heroin, C4 and ICBMs.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I do NOT think everyone should have access to firearms. I don't think Waragainstsleep should be forced to own, handle or otherwise deal with firearms because he's not interested in them. I don't think a lot of people who are legally allowed to have guns should have them...but I also don't think that most people who are legally allowed to vote should have as much say in our government as I do (and there's a whole lot of stuff to talk about in that issue), but in both cases, it is NOT my decision to make.

I don't think any country with a military would be wise to force people to own guns. I find it curious that you choose not to err on the side of caution on gun ownership.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The Constitution gives anyone over 18 years of age the right to vote, and it gives any adult (with some limits) the right to "keep and bear arms". I spent a quarter century serving this country, putting myself in harms way, to support and defend the Constitution, and I continue to hold the Constitution in higher regard than other people's opinions of social and political issues. I have been in the position to "defend to the death your right to say" what you believe. Waragainstsleep, we shall simply have to agree to disagree on this.

I see no reason why you couldn't consider the constitution to be worth fighting for despite disagreeing with some of it, or with some of the popular interpretations of it.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Key word there was 'else'. Those are all in the US and the regulations are ineffective because all you have to do to circumvent them is drive down the road. Thought the crime rate in NY has done pretty well since they cracked down hasn't it?

Did they tighten regulations in Atlanta? Wouldn't have imagined that would ever get through.

It's amazing what police can do when you hire them and put them on the street so they can do their job. You have to be preventative with petty crime because the lawyers don't like the ROI on going to court over it.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I can't possibly have failed to show how doing something I haven't advocated doing would have an effect I haven't claimed it would have.

Tighter regulations don't cut down on the wrong people having guns, that's the point, because criminals ignore laws.

Congratulations to you for following the typical (and frankly brainless) pattern of conservative argument which is to just repeat the same old tired and oft refuted nonsense regardless of its relevance to the point in question.

Irrelevant, because it's true. If you're going to continue to be insulting, however, you can go *** yourself.

Its clear that you haven't even been reading what I say. Which is this: You cannot ban guns in the USA, because even if you succeeded the death and crime rates would skyrocket. It might eventually pay off, but it would take too long and cost too many lives.
What I have been saying is not that you should ban guns, even if its just handguns and automatics. You should aspire to get to a point where this can safely and sensibly and happily be done.

The restrictions you proposed won't work either, as has been told to you several times, the USA isn't England.

This next bit should please you though since you've already tried (and failed) to counter it: Placing tighter controls on ownership and taking steps to water down the gun culture whereby guns are seen as cool would correct SOME bad behaviour. The ready availability of guns provides people with opportunities that they simply don't have in other places. Its only logical that more people will be tempted. This applies as much to the guy who robs a liquor store as it does to the guy who has an argument with his wife and decides to shoot her in the heat of the moment. If the armed robber had to take greater risk and put in more effort would he still rob the store? If the angry husband wasn't used to the idea that he can grab a gun and shoot any time he really wants, isn't it more likely his temper will burn itself out before he murders someone? Thats how bad behaviour can be affected. I've succeeded in showing it, just for you.

So, we need gov't regulations to "water down the gun culture"? How in the hell do you do that? Restrict free speech? Ready availability is already there in the black market, restricting legit sales only takes guns out of the hands of people who, repeat after me, aren't the problem in the first place.

You don't need rapid fire to hunt deer and you can defend your home with a hunting rifle or shotgun if you need to. Rifles are tools and should not be banned, "machine guns" are for "when you absolutely have to kill every last ************ in the room" even when they aren't AK-47s. They should not be within easy reach of children or idiots. Sadly this covers most of the population of the world since everyone is an idiot sometimes.

You have no idea what an "assault rifle" is, so that's one of the problems with discussing this with you. An assault rifle isn't an automatic weapon, it's a semi-auto rifle, just like the ones used for hunting, but with more "tactical accessories" on it (which don't change the lethality of the weapon) and cosmetic changes. That's it.

As long as they are stored securely and responsibly.

Yep.

And yet it happens frequently and other children and even trained instructors die as a result and people do not get prosecuted because they have suffered enough due to their loss or because it was god's will or just an accident.

Given the number and the size of the population, no, it doesn't happen frequently, but more firearm education is needed.

Many of those accidents happen to law abiding citizens. We legislate for proper use of cars and other tools. Wear hard hats on building sites, hazmat suits when treating Ebola. We legislate to force or at least encourage people to take the proper precautions when doing something potentially dangerous. Gun get a free pass thanks to the NRA and the arms lobby.

No, they get a "free pass" because their lawful ownership is a part of our Constitution.

You're right it probably was a fairly extreme case from Kentucky IIRC, but no-one was punished for giving a 5 year old a loaded rifle and then leaving him unsupervised. It would have been much more difficult for a 5 year old to stab a 2 year old deliberately, let alone by accident and I'll bet even the biggest gun retard in Kentucky would know to keep knives out of the way of five year olds while having no issues with guns.

and a boy in Bristol stabbed his 4 y/o sister to death about the same time, it isn't the tool, it's the parenting.

The inanimate object defence is weak. Guns already get special treatment in this respect when they logically shouldn't. Heroin and Dynamite are harmless if you leave them on their own but one is strictly regulated and the other is 100% illegal outside one or two research labs (I'm guessing). Cars and chemicals and foodstuffs and tools and all manner of other products come with regulations, restrictions, licenses, protective equipment, and health warnings. Guns are inexplicably exempt from adding or increasing any of these measures under the guise that its the first step to the government taking them away Its propaganda and it doesn't exist to protect your freedom, it exists to protect profits.

It is explicable, it exists because it's part of the damned LAW. Away from that, they're just tools, and like any tool they can help or harm. The fact that you and others like you are terrified of them doesn't change that reality. Education is the cure for fear.

Do I think people do smoke without harming others? No. But theoretically they can. This distinction seems to be important to you when it comes to what people do with guns compared to what the guns do on their own. Thats why I said it. FWIW my father died of lung cancer, or rather the numerous other cancers it caused by spreading all over the place.

Because, it's all about what you do with them. Cig companies sell a deadly poison that's intended for widespread human consumption, it is literally slow, legal assisted suicide for people who would otherwise be completely healthy.

You are comparing two industries who do not care about causing innocent people to die in the name of their profits. One might kill thousands instead of millions, but the millions who die at the end of a cigarette do so standing behind one by choice. Those who die by gun are standing in front of it and most of them never chose to be there. They are both despicable, even if I agree tobacco is worse, it doesn't excuse or even mitigate "big firearms" at all.

Since you don't know the people who run any of the gun companies, I'll chalk that up to ignorance. Again, it's nothing more than a company that makes a tool that scares you, there's nothing evil about a gun, in fact they can be used for very righteous causes, the same can't be said, whatsoever, about Big Tobacco. Yet, your country allows millions of packs of cigs to be sold in your very own country, killing 10s of thousands of you every year, knowing full well that death will be the price for addiction to them. Still think your gov't gives a rat's ass about your welfare?

[subego]

Everybody feel free to take shots at my statistics.

If you legalized drugs, prostitution, etc., our homicide rate would drop to about half its current level.

Which would make us about on par with Norway.

I'll fully admit, I picked a European country with one of the higher homicide rates.

So tell me, do you guys give Norway shit for being barbarians like you do the US, or is it just possible we do a better job at handling the ocean of weaponry at our disposal than we're given credit?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its not terribly specific in its regulation though is it? And guns today are a very different beast compared with the day it was written. This seems like a sufficient reason to revisit those regulations even if they were quite specific.

The lack of specific detail is an important point: citizens are the ultimate power under the Constitution. It really doesn't matter that guns have changed since then, as the Colonists used the highest tech guns that existed at the time.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

But how often does that happen compared to the number of people who go on shooting sprees?

How often do people go on "shooting sprees," and how often does the 24hour news cycle make it look like an isolated event is part of a trend? Letting the news infotainment industry change how you interpret reporting is probably more of an issue than the frequency of shootings, especially given that the trend (per FBI statistics) for the last several decades has been [u]decreasing.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

People don't tend to kill many other people with hiking boots or cameras or books though do they? I understand why target shooting is fun/interesting. I have enjoyed it myself. You don't really need to own a gun to do that though, it could be done in licensed premises with better security than the average household. In such a case you are not trading those innocent lost lives for the freedom to shoot targets, only for the freedom to do it in your own back yard.

A small group of people killed over 3000 others with some airplanes several years ago... Not too long ago there were about a dozen people killed by a single person who intentionally drove his car into a crowd. The choice of mechanism doesn't say much about the crime, just about the criminal. The problem with licensing individuals to own guns is that EVERY time it's been done, it has been politicized, so that the group in power when the rules were written managed to keep guns away from their political opponents. The ONLY way to avoid politicizing that is to avoid such licensing entirely. Stick with what the Constitution says, prevent felons and those with documented mental health issues from owning guns, and the politics falls away.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The other side of this argument is that if inanimate objects or substances are not to blame and shouldn't be banned then why are you not advocating legalisation of heroin, C4 and ICBMs.

Did I ever say I was against legalizing (with proper safety precautions) heroin or C4?

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't think any country with a military would be wise to force people to own guns. I find it curious that you choose not to err on the side of caution on gun ownership.

Who said anything about FORCING people to own guns? But the Swiss DO expect everyone to help defend Switzerland, and you might be very surprised by how many people there have automatic weapons...

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I see no reason why you couldn't consider the constitution to be worth fighting for despite disagreeing with some of it, or with some of the popular interpretations of it.

We completely agree here. I don't have to agree with your interpretations of what the Constitution says, and I don't' have to agree with how the Supreme Court interprets it. I DO have to abide by what the Supreme Court says the Constitution means, even if it's very unpleasant to me. And that's the thing here: YOUR opinion about gun ownership is is counter to the Supreme Court's. Should the Supreme Court make changes to how things work now, I would have to comply, but I would also take legal, political action to restore my rights AND yours. We adults have the right to vote, even though a sadly large number of us don't bother...you don't have to take advantage of a Constitutional right to "have" it, you know.

[subego]

Still waiting for people to bag on Norway...

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Tighter regulations don't cut down on the wrong people having guns, that's the point, because criminals ignore laws.

The right regulations would eventually impact the flow of weapons from being legally purchased to being illegally purchased and hence ending up in the wrong hands.
I haven't heard any kind of counter to this opinion that goes beyond you just saying no because the idea doesn't suit you.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Irrelevant, because it's true. If you're going to continue to be insulting, however, you can go *** yourself.

I'm in two minds whether or not to elaborate on this and for now I'm going to leave it other than to say that I was careful to insult your opinions and arguments rather than you. I realise people often struggle to separate the two.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The restrictions you proposed won't work either, as has been told to you several times, the USA isn't England.

I haven't actually proposed anything specific at all. The fact that you are flatly denying these non-existent proposals without regard for what they might be very clearly demonstrates the openness and reasonability of your position.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

So, we need gov't regulations to "water down the gun culture"? How in the hell do you do that? Restrict free speech?

People will eventually get used to circumstances. Tighten a regulation, ban a few specific items and after a while people will stop missing them. Many people rail against Pot for the simple reason that it has been illegal everywhere all their lives (until recently).

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Ready availability is already there in the black market, restricting legit sales only takes guns out of the hands of people who, repeat after me, aren't the problem in the first place.

I won't repeat it after you, you and too many others are repeating it more than enough for anyone regardless of its relevance to any actual point.
See my first point above. Make it require more effort and more money to get guns legally, but not impossible. Make people consider it a hassle not worth enduring to replace a gun unless they absolutely have to so they take better care of the ones they have in terms of secure storage or not selling one in a bar when they run short for their rent or whatever. You won't stop them all but you won't stop those precious "responsible" legal buyers from buying either, they'll just have to want it more.
Surely if the GOP thinks its reasonable to enact voter ID laws it should be at least as difficult to buy guns as it is to vote?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You have no idea what an "assault rifle" is, so that's one of the problems with discussing this with you. An assault rifle isn't an automatic weapon, it's a semi-auto rifle, just like the ones used for hunting, but with more "tactical accessories" on it (which don't change the lethality of the weapon) and cosmetic changes. That's it.

Fascinating I'm sure, but this even more than most of your points preceding it in this post clearly demonstrate that you aren't even reading what I write, you're just arguing against a stereotypical anti-gun liberal and the things you expect him to say.

I never mentioned assault rifles. I was careful not to in case it sparked this exact copy and paste from whatever right-wing propaganda handbook you won't admit to getting it from (not that it matters when they are all the same)

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Given the number and the size of the population, no, it doesn't happen frequently, but more firearm education is needed.

Even a one or two is too many for anyone who gives a damn.
I'm sure your justice system understands the need to incentivise people to take their responsibilities more seriously when the consequences are so easily fatal.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No, they get a "free pass" because their lawful ownership is a part of our Constitution.

Laws are supposed to protect people. When they aren't working properly you change them.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

and a boy in Bristol stabbed his 4 y/o sister to death about the same time, it isn't the tool, it's the parenting.

I can't really comment on this without more details. If the kid was stupid or sociopathic it almost certainly would have happened sooner if he'd managed to get hold of a gun. Chances are others would have died too.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It is explicable, it exists because it's part of the damned LAW. Away from that, they're just tools, and like any tool they can help or harm. The fact that you and others like you are terrified of them doesn't change that reality. Education is the cure for fear.

Education is the cure for stupid. Its mostly smart people who aren't so fond of guns. And most of us aren't afraid of the tools, its the tools wielding them we don't trust and they continually prove us right that we shouldn't.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Because, it's all about what you do with them. Cig companies sell a deadly poison that's intended for widespread human consumption, it is literally slow, legal assisted suicide for people who would otherwise be completely healthy.

But the victim almost always has more choice than a shooting victim. If you don't like second hand smoke you can move somewhere there isn't any and it won't be too late to save yourself. Doesn't work that way when someone shoots you.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Since you don't know the people who run any of the gun companies, I'll chalk that up to ignorance.

They make billions of dollars profiting from war and murder, which gives them an incentive to promote more war and more murder and so they spend some of their billions buying laws and regulations to help prop up the supply of wars and murders. But I'm sure they're all run by absolute ****ing saints.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Again, it's nothing more than a company that makes a tool that scares you, there's nothing evil about a gun, in fact they can be used for very righteous causes, the same can't be said, whatsoever, about Big Tobacco. Yet, your country allows millions of packs of cigs to be sold in your very own country, killing 10s of thousands of you every year, knowing full well that death will be the price for addiction to them. Still think your gov't gives a rat's ass about your welfare?

Actually our government is in the process of phasing tobacco out. Has been for years.
It has nothing to do with inanimate objects being good or evil. Thats just another one of your silly conservative sound bytes. Its about legislating for stupid, lazy, irresponsible, criminal and crazy. We do it all the time for every single other thing that exists. Its the reason that even high ranking military personnel who answer to elected officials require elaborate systems of multiple keys and top secret codes to launch nukes. So it doesn't happen by accident, because preventing accidents is sensible.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The lack of specific detail is an important point: citizens are the ultimate power under the Constitution. It really doesn't matter that guns have changed since then, as the Colonists used the highest tech guns that existed at the time.

Of course it matters. The term is actually arms isn't it? Doesn't that include everything up to a tactical nuke? Is it a good idea to give George Zimmerman or the cast of Duck Dynasty access to tactical nukes? Don't be ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

How often do people go on "shooting sprees," and how often does the 24hour news cycle make it look like an isolated event is part of a trend? Letting the news infotainment industry change how you interpret reporting is probably more of an issue than the frequency of shootings, especially given that the trend (per FBI statistics) for the last several decades has been [u]decreasing.

The sprees are still the headline grabbers for sure but I keep reading low key news items about guys who shoot their wives and kids like its one of those things that happens every now and then like someone in your county getting hit by a bus or something.
People shooting their families and friends over stupid arguments and then turning the guns on themselves when they come to their senses and realise what they just did. I think its far less likely that these things would happen with knives and I'm certain the consequences would be less severe.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A small group of people killed over 3000 others with some airplanes several years ago... Not too long ago there were about a dozen people killed by a single person who intentionally drove his car into a crowd. The choice of mechanism doesn't say much about the crime, just about the criminal. The problem with licensing individuals to own guns is that EVERY time it's been done, it has been politicized, so that the group in power when the rules were written managed to keep guns away from their political opponents. The ONLY way to avoid politicizing that is to avoid such licensing entirely.

Since the only way to avoid politicising the gun issue is to give the right exactly what they want, this is rather problematic.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Stick with what the Constitution says, prevent felons and those with documented mental health issues from owning guns, and the politics falls away.

Just a pity that the constitution isn't so open to interpretation on this matter isn't it? And that no-one is allowed to change this bit.
I don't see why tighter regulations on buying and keeping guns should be political. They'd apply to everyone after all, regardless of party affiliation. And like I said in my last post, if its constitutional to make it harder for people to vote, clearly the Republicans have no leg to stand on if they wish to object on those grounds. The right to vote has to be more fundamental than the right to bear arms in anyone's books.
Also harsher consequences for people who sell guns illegally or whose guns are used in crimes. Freedoms come at a price right?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Did I ever say I was against legalizing (with proper safety precautions) heroin or C4?

Aren't you a doctor? You'd legalise Heroin? I'm all for proper regulation of most drugs but not Heroin or Meth. Dirty, nasty, horrible drugs.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Who said anything about FORCING people to own guns? But the Swiss DO expect everyone to help defend Switzerland, and you might be very surprised by how many people there have automatic weapons...

Actually you said I shouldn't be forced to own one which sort of implied that someone had suggested I should.
If you have any ideas about how the Swiss manage to own lots of big guns without behaving the way you lot do and taking selfies with them all the time, I'd be curious but your nation needs to hear it.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

We completely agree here. I don't have to agree with your interpretations of what the Constitution says, and I don't' have to agree with how the Supreme Court interprets it. I DO have to abide by what the Supreme Court says the Constitution means, even if it's very unpleasant to me. And that's the thing here: YOUR opinion about gun ownership is is counter to the Supreme Court's. Should the Supreme Court make changes to how things work now, I would have to comply, but I would also take legal, political action to restore my rights AND yours. We adults have the right to vote, even though a sadly large number of us don't bother...you don't have to take advantage of a Constitutional right to "have" it, you know.

Your supreme court system seems to be pretty easily rigged in this age where everything is so partisan.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The right regulations would eventually impact the flow of weapons from being legally purchased to being illegally purchased and hence ending up in the wrong hands.
I haven't heard any kind of counter to this opinion that goes beyond you just saying no because the idea doesn't suit you.

I've said no because there are already 100s of millions of guns already available illegally, and restricting the legal sale of firearms will only affect those people who aren't the problem to begin with. (I can keep saying that over and over, if you want.)

People will eventually get used to circumstances. Tighten a regulation, ban a few specific items and after a while people will stop missing them. Many people rail against Pot for the simple reason that it has been illegal everywhere all their lives (until recently).

They won't need to "get used to circumstances" because the right to keep and bear arms is a vital part of our Constitution, and has been since we stopped being a British colony. You want to be disarmed, great, we don't.

I won't repeat it after you, you and too many others are repeating it more than enough for anyone regardless of its relevance to any actual point.
See my first point above. Make it require more effort and more money to get guns legally, but not impossible. Make people consider it a hassle not worth enduring to replace a gun unless they absolutely have to so they take better care of the ones they have in terms of secure storage or not selling one in a bar when they run short for their rent or whatever. You won't stop them all but you won't stop those precious "responsible" legal buyers from buying either, they'll just have to want it more.
Surely if the GOP thinks its reasonable to enact voter ID laws it should be at least as difficult to buy guns as it is to vote?

BS statement, because it IS easier to vote in the USA than it is to buy a firearm. I know, because I voted. All I had to do was give my name and address, sign affirming that's who I am, and then vote. Also, why should it be cheaper for criminals to buy guns (it already is) than a law-abiding citizen. Your measures don't remove guns from the hands of offenders, you're only throwing up roadblocks for people who, I'll say it again, aren't the problem to begin with.

Fascinating I'm sure, but this even more than most of your points preceding it in this post clearly demonstrate that you aren't even reading what I write, you're just arguing against a stereotypical anti-gun liberal and the things you expect him to say.

I never mentioned assault rifles. I was careful not to in case it sparked this exact copy and paste from whatever right-wing propaganda handbook you won't admit to getting it from (not that it matters when they are all the same)

I've already explained there's no difference between rifles that are used for killing game and those used for killing people (assault rifles) aside from cosmetics. The fact you believe automatic rifles are an issue over here perfectly frames your deficiency in understanding. Almost no one here has a machine gun, to own one requires jumping through legal hoops, and paying a small fortune, provided you can find a pre-ban auto to begin with (for an insane amount of money). A new auto requires a Federal firearms dealer or manufacturer's license, and you'd better be prepared to hear the word "NO", because they don't hand those out to just anyone. A colonoscopy with a periscope is less invasive than that background check, and even if you do get one you'd better be prepared for federal agents to just drop by every now and then to see what's going on. So, either you're talking about a class of gun most can't own, or you're talking about an "assault rifle"/hunting rifle.

(BTW, an automatic rifle is typically less lethal than a semi-auto, they're made for suppression fire to keep the enemy out of a specific area and to keep their heads down. However, due to fear, they make a whole lot of racket, their ownership is the most limited. Just like the government to get everything ass-backwards.)

Even a one or two is too many for anyone who gives a damn.
I'm sure your justice system understands the need to incentivise people to take their responsibilities more seriously when the consequences are so easily fatal.

But see, you don't really "give a damn", or you'd be going after the things that are more readily available and kill far more people. It's all down to you feeling that an armed person has more control over a situation than you would, when the reality is that a person who is lawfully carrying a concealed handgun is no more a threat to you than a person who isn't, provided you aren't trying to kill them. It's something that has to be used, and it's tough to draw a weapon, aim, and then shoot a person, very very hard. The average person can't, unless their life is in jeopardy.

However, it's much easier for a 17 y/o girl in a Range Rover to fall asleep, or simply slide through an intersection during a storm, hitting your car and killing you and your family. Or, for you to only smoke a fag "every now and then", or maybe a pack when you're out drinking with mates, and then wake up 20 years later with a tumor the size of a golf ball in one of your lungs. Your priorities are out of whack, quite frankly, the shit that should scare the hell out of you is widely accepted (if not always embraced) and used for taxation, while a gun, which when properly cared for can't harm anyone without intent, is reviled. Yes, seriously, I don't get it. I'd ban cigs, place a 18 y/o age limit on driving (20 at night) while requiring 20 hours of driving classes to get a permit, and lastly, require a firearms safety class in every school, that must be passed before a child turns 14. Proper education is everything, and with it we could eliminate accidents involving guns and create a more aware society in the process.

Laws are supposed to protect people. When they aren't working properly you change them.

Our Constitution won't change, no one can pass an amendment restricting the right to keep and bear arms, because they'd never get enough states to pass the amendment (thank god).

I can't really comment on this without more details. If the kid was stupid or sociopathic it almost certainly would have happened sooner if he'd managed to get hold of a gun. Chances are others would have died too.

"Would have happened sooner"? That's absurd. It would only be through sheer bad luck that he (being only 6 or 7) could aim and hit anything with a firearm. Why? Because they're heavy and difficult for youngsters to control, that's why you keep them away from kids until they're physically strong enough to hold it properly and emotionally mature enough to understand the responsibility. A knife, OTOH, well, practically anyone can be lethal with a kitchen knife.

Education is the cure for stupid. Its mostly smart people who aren't so fond of guns. And most of us aren't afraid of the tools, its the tools wielding them we don't trust and they continually prove us right that we shouldn't.

"Mostly smart people aren't so fond of guns"? Really? I've found the opposite to be true. Interesting. Improving firearms education fixes the gun problem in the USA, not more restrictions. We can do better than simply making them unavailable to everyone who isn't a crook.

But the victim almost always has more choice than a shooting victim. If you don't like second hand smoke you can move somewhere there isn't any and it won't be too late to save yourself. Doesn't work that way when someone shoots you.

Again, spoken like a person who doesn't understand addiction to cigarettes (or any type at all). In many ways it's worse than heroin. Because, not only are you battling the intense physical need, you're also trying to stop the ritual of smoking, itself. Do you get that? It's a thing that's designed and sold to; hook you when you're young, tighten its grip when you're grown, and then kill you decades before your time, but not before Big tobacco makes $3700 /yr (at current prices) from your suicide.

They make billions of dollars profiting from war and murder, which gives them an incentive to promote more war and more murder and so they spend some of their billions buying laws and regulations to help prop up the supply of wars and murders. But I'm sure they're all run by absolute ****ing saints.

Oh please, FFS. Again, we aren't talking about military arms, and your illusions regarding how much influence they have are ridiculous. You know less than nothing about firearms in the USA (which is the root of all your problems regarding this subject). I guarantee that Big tobacco, Big Pharma, Big oil, and automakers, each of them, are all buying much more gov't influence than all the gun manufacturers combined. Your perceptions of what they sell, and how they sell it, is very distorted by your country's anti-gun propaganda.

Actually our government is in the process of phasing tobacco out. Has been for years.
It has nothing to do with inanimate objects being good or evil. Thats just another one of your silly conservative sound bytes. Its about legislating for stupid, lazy, irresponsible, criminal and crazy. We do it all the time for every single other thing that exists. Its the reason that even high ranking military personnel who answer to elected officials require elaborate systems of multiple keys and top secret codes to launch nukes. So it doesn't happen by accident, because preventing accidents is sensible.

Yep, sure, I'll bet they're right on it. WAIT!!! Wait! You believe there's an elaborate system to keep nukes from being fired?! Really? Oh man, that's priceless, and couldn't be further from the truth. Our early strike ICBMs require 2 minutes, 2 keys, and 2 button presses. That's it! It can't be elaborate, or it wouldn't be an early strike system. The reason we don't worry about nuclear war just happening off the cuff is because we have the most loyal, sane, and respected people at those posts. They're also the most probed, analyzed, and scrutinized people in the armed forces, if not the whole world, because the welfare of the rest of humanity is in their hands. Geez, man, you watch way too many movies, that and playing video games with psychopaths has done you no favors at all.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I've said no because there are already 100s of millions of guns already available illegally, and restricting the legal sale of firearms will only affect those people who aren't the problem to begin with. (I can keep saying that over and over, if you want.)

No i don't want. I want you to use some logic and explain how my theory of the mechanism that converts legally owned guns into illegally owned ones is flawed, or some reason that there is no such thing as a regulation that could help with that, but by all means keep vomiting NRA mottos all over the thread in the hope I'll get bored of pointing out how baseless your argument is.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

They won't need to "get used to circumstances" because the right to keep and bear arms is a vital part of our Constitution, and has been since we stopped being a British colony. You want to be disarmed, great, we don't.

Demonstrably false premise. It isn't vital, thats why no-one else has it. You're brainwashed into thinking its vital, but the data says otherwise. Unequivocally.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

BS statement, because it IS easier to vote in the USA than it is to buy a firearm. I know, because I voted. All I had to do was give my name and address, sign affirming that's who I am, and then vote. Also, why should it be cheaper for criminals to buy guns (it already is) than a law-abiding citizen. Your measures don't remove guns from the hands of offenders, you're only throwing up roadblocks for people who, I'll say it again, aren't the problem to begin with.

Oh look, theres that baseless argument again in the same post.
I'm aware that its easier to vote than buy guns, it should be don't you think? Why though does the political right not cry so hard when the GOP restricts a right that really is vital to a democracy? Could it be there isn't a multibillion dollar force making a living out of you casting your votes (yet)?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I've already explained there's no difference between rifles that are used for killing game and those used for killing people (assault rifles) aside from cosmetics. The fact you believe automatic rifles are an issue over here perfectly frames your deficiency in understanding. Almost no one here has a machine gun, to own one requires jumping through legal hoops, and paying a small fortune, provided you can find a pre-ban auto to begin with (for an insane amount of money). A new auto requires a Federal firearms dealer or manufacturer's license, and you'd better be prepared to hear the word "NO", because they don't hand those out to just anyone. A colonoscopy with a periscope is less invasive than that background check, and even if you do get one you'd better be prepared for federal agents to just drop by every now and then to see what's going on. So, either you're talking about a class of gun most can't own, or you're talking about an "assault rifle"/hunting rifle.

(BTW, an automatic rifle is typically less lethal than a semi-auto, they're made for suppression fire to keep the enemy out of a specific area and to keep their heads down. However, due to fear, they make a whole lot of racket, their ownership is the most limited. Just like the government to get everything ass-backwards.)

I'm not sure about rifles in the UK. I have a feeling that semi-auto isn't allowed either and they have to be bolt-action or something like that.
I think the point is that with automatic weapons, while they may not be all that lethal one on one, if you fire one into a dense crowd, you have much bigger problems than with semi don't you?
I'm not sure how practical suppression fire is when defending yourself against armed burglars either.



[QUOTE=Cap'n Tightpants;4298811]But see, you don't really "give a damn", or you'd be going after the things that are more readily available and kill far more people. It's all down to you feeling that an armed person has more control over a situation than you would, when the reality is that a person who is lawfully carrying a concealed handgun is no more a threat to you than a person who isn't, provided you aren't trying to kill them. /QUOTE]


Its about their inability to control themselves. I can walk down the street and get into a verbal altercation with someone with virtually no fear that he will be armed and shoot me if I make him too angry. I know you like to think that a couple of days training and an instructor telling you never to point at someone unless you mean it a couple times is sufficient to curb anger, ego and impulse control issues but I'm not convinced.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It's something that has to be used, and it's tough to draw a weapon, aim, and then shoot a person, very very hard. The average person can't, unless their life is in jeopardy.

20 or 30 years ago I'd have agreed but the younger generations today exhibit a lot of behaviour that you just didn't see back then. The sort of behaviour where if they snap they are capable of anything and making them snap isn't that hard.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

However, it's much easier for a 17 y/o girl in a Range Rover to fall asleep, or simply slide through an intersection during a storm, hitting your car and killing you and your family.

Of course but legally speaking that can happen to anyone of any age. By all means tweak the regulations if you feel the statistics warrant it.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Or, for you to only smoke a fag "every now and then", or maybe a pack when you're out drinking with mates, and then wake up 20 years later with a tumor the size of a golf ball in one of your lungs. Your priorities are out of whack, quite frankly, the shit that should scare the hell out of you is widely accepted (if not always embraced) and used for taxation,

A tumour you might have gotten anyway. If you live long enough, you will get cancer. Like the way a hard drive will eventually fail.
I haven't been forced to be in the presence of cigarette smoke many years now. Its something I can very easily control. I have no control over people shooting me, deliberately or otherwise. I realise that statistically its not even that likely but very few babies fall into swimming pools and drown yet we take precautions because these things are preventable.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

while a gun, which when properly cared for can't harm anyone without intent, is reviled. Yes, seriously, I don't get it. I'd ban cigs, place a 18 y/o age limit on driving (20 at night) while requiring 20 hours of driving classes to get a permit, and lastly, require a firearms safety class in every school, that must be passed before a child turns 14. Proper education is everything, and with it we could eliminate accidents involving guns and create a more aware society in the process.

I'd be interested to see the political right apple the same theory to gun education that they do to sex education, namely that it will encourage gun use. The irony being that abstinence really can work with guns because they aren't a biological imperative.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Our Constitution won't change, no one can pass an amendment restricting the right to keep and bear arms, because they'd never get enough states to pass the amendment (thank god).

Can't argue with that (except the god part but lets not go there). I know it wouldn't pass. Today.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

"Would have happened sooner"? That's absurd. It would only be through sheer bad luck that he (being only 6 or 7) could aim and hit anything with a firearm. Why? Because they're heavy and difficult for youngsters to control, that's why you keep them away from kids until they're physically strong enough to hold it properly and emotionally mature enough to understand the responsibility. A knife, OTOH, well, practically anyone can be lethal with a kitchen knife.

There isn't enough detail. If a normally adjusted kid with parents who never told him not to play with knives accidentally nicked an artery and killed his sister, thats one thing. If he got annoyed because she was stealing his attention and deliberately stabbed her multiple times, thats quite another.
The former is bad parenting and the reason a gun wouldn't have made it worse was if like you suggest he missed and it gave everyone a walk-up call. If the case was the latter then who's to say he wouldn't have shot an angry parent or two after they rushed in to see him having gunned down a baby in cold blood? In both cases, gun = worse.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

"Mostly smart people aren't so fond of guns"? Really? I've found the opposite to be true.

Are you sure you don't just assume they aren't smart because you disagree with their stance on guns?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Again, spoken like a person who doesn't understand addiction to cigarettes (or any type at all). In many ways it's worse than heroin. Because, not only are you battling the intense physical need, you're also trying to stop the ritual of smoking, itself. Do you get that? It's a thing that's designed and sold to; hook you when you're young, tighten its grip when you're grown, and then kill you decades before your time, but not before Big tobacco makes $3700 /yr (at current prices) from your suicide.

IMO the intense physical need is minor compared to the habit and ritual component and I say that from experience. I don't know why we are still talking about cigarettes at this point though. I have no desire to defend tobacco companies. They might even be worse than arms dealers.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Oh please, FFS. Again, we aren't talking about military arms, and your illusions regarding how much influence they have are ridiculous. You know less than nothing about firearms in the USA (which is the root of all your problems regarding this subject). I guarantee that Big tobacco, Big Pharma, Big oil, and automakers, each of them, are all buying much more gov't influence than all the gun manufacturers combined. Your perceptions of what they sell, and how they sell it, is very distorted by your country's anti-gun propaganda.

Again you seem to following a strange argument that 'others are worse so its ok'. I don't doubt that all those listed buy plenty of influence. Are you seriously telling me that the companies selling guns to private citizens don't also make them for military use? Those juicy government contracts they probably have with every government in the world but in all those other countries the private markets are barely an afterthought or niche. The countries that have loose enough regulations don't have wealthy enough citizens. Except for one.
Oh and we don't have an anti-gun propaganda here. No-one here is bothered. Until we see news reports from your country and roll our eyes at the stupidity of your situation. Thats how we see it from Europe, don't take it personally.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Yep, sure, I'll bet they're right on it. WAIT!!! Wait! You believe there's an elaborate system to keep nukes from being fired?! Really? Oh man, that's priceless, and couldn't be further from the truth. Our early strike ICBMs require 2 minutes, 2 keys, and 2 button presses. That's it! It can't be elaborate, or it wouldn't be an early strike system.

Its all relative. Compared to one hillbilly/gangbanger/meth-head with an itchy trigger finger, that qualifies as elaborate. The point is you can't set it off by accident. Please go ahead snorting derisively as you prove my points for me though.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The reason we don't worry about nuclear war just happening off the cuff is because we have the most loyal, sane, and respected people at those posts. They're also the most probed, analyzed, and scrutinized people in the armed forces, if not the whole world, because the welfare of the rest of humanity is in their hands.

Hmmm. Sounds like tight regulations to me.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Geez, man, you watch way too many movies, that and playing video games with psychopaths has done you no favors at all.

Psychopaths who are probably more representative than you think.
Gonna be interesting to see what happens when all these COD-playing, rage-quitting, butt-hurt egomaniac kids get old enough to buy the real thing.

[ghporter]

Heroin (NOT street heroin) is an exceptionally useful pain management medication, and while it's "horribly nasty bad evil" here in the US, it's NOT illegal everywhere. It's used in pain relief for hospice patients in the UK with excellent results. Meth? That's different, and not a player. But cocaine? Maybe in certain circumstances - it is still an extremely useful pain management medication, used in orofacial surgery, for example.

I think we have a chance to see what "giving the Right everything they want" actually does, now that both houses of Congress now have Republican majorities. But I don't think that makes a real difference. The statistics, over several decades with both parties in control over that time, have all been showing declining violent crime rates (with a few variations now and then), both in terms of "shooting sprees" and personal (one on one) crimes in everything EXCEPT sexual assault, which seems to have trended upward over the last several years. It is possible that there are more reported sexual assaults because it is less difficult to report them, and less likely that victims will be blamed immediately, but that's another discussion.

The current sense that more violence is happening every day is not a reflection of what is actually reported to police, but seems to be more because of more NEWS reporting. If we actually had more politically neutral news sources across the country, we might actually see less politicization of issues and have a chance to have more adult, informed discussions of those issues.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

*more circle-jerking*

Talking about gun laws with foreigners from gun-control countries is pointless, and I genuinely don't have the time to continue this wankfest. We'll keep our guns and you keep not having them, because never the twain shall meet (and I'm fine with that).

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The current sense that more violence is happening every day is not a reflection of what is actually reported to police, but seems to be more because of more NEWS reporting. If we actually had more politically neutral news sources across the country, we might actually see less politicization of issues and have a chance to have more adult, informed discussions of those issues.

Indeed, we're becoming a less violent society with fewer gun crimes, despite the boom in legal gun sales. It's the media and a certain agenda being pushed, because it hits a nerve on both sides, and it's all about how many eyeballs they can attract to their stories. That's it.

Edit: WE DO need compulsory firearm safety in schools, however, to prevent the accidents and counter all the ignorance.

[besson3c]

Waragainstsleep: don't feel bad, I lived in the US for over a decade and I never quite figured out the whole gun thing myself. If I had to guess, it sort of relates to the DNA of America and its history of armed rebellion, and general discomfort in putting too much trust in its government. With the government that the US has, this is certainly understandable to an extent, and of course there are many other examples of abuse of power by government outside of the US.

I've met a socialist who is also in favor of these gun rights, but for different reasons than your prototypical Republican. For him, he believes very strongly in powerful work unions as a means for "the people", rather than the aristocratic, to have their say in how the country is governed.

The thinking is that if you take weapons away from the people, you take away their ability to form an armed rebellion against their government. I think this is foreign to us (me as a Canadian-born dual citizen, you as a Brit) because we haven't been raised in an environment where we felt that the only way to deal with government corruption is to participate in violent regimes.

I personally think that there are things that can be done to bridge the gap between corrupt governments that don't answer to the people and needing violent regimes (starting with the notion that not enough people participate and pay attention, media powers, campaign finance, etc.), but I can see how some would think that in the meantime they need to gun up.

What makes things very confusing is that a lot of people embrace the gun culture using vague and weird arguments that don't really hold water (e.g. "Murica.. Freedom!"). I guess there are always people that believe certain things on an emotional basis, being influenced by leaders that can articulate coherent ideas. The problem is that many foreigners seem to feel that these sort of people represent America. This is difficult because there aren't really any clear leaders of this gun culture.

It is also confusing how politics enters all of this, and how the right wing has aligned themselves with this. For people that are concerned about "the people" not being heard, it seems foolish to place trust in Republican politicians (or Democratic politicians), yet the machinery that pits Republicans against Democrats as a huge national sport is huge too. Look at BadKosh, he is a poster boy of the sort of people that these people wish to breed, and there have been examples of people on the left here as well (I don't remember their names off the top of my head). My point is that the concern over government not representing the people at this point should not be a partisan wedge issue at all.

That being said, yes, fewer guns would probably result in fewer crimes, and everything you have said has a logical basis too, but you aren't going to get far without sort of cutting into the core of this complicated culture.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

despite the boom in legal gun sales.

The boom in gun sales is a little misleading, however.

[The Final Dakar]

Also, this got passed.
Washington voters choose gun control; huge majority in Seattle area - Strange Bedfellows — Politics News

Initiative 594, designed to close the “gun show loophole,” took 60 percent of the vote across Washington and nearly 75 percent of the vote in King County. It led from Whatcom County at one end of the state to Asotin County at the other.

The initiative would require criminal background checks for those purchasing firearms at gun shows or over the Internet. Background checks are already required for those buying guns at federally licensed firearms dealers.

Glad to see it pass with a big majority.

Washington voters apparently avoided confusion over a rival measure backed by the gun lobby, I-591, which trailed with just 44 percent of the vote. It would prohibit Washington from enacting any gun-control measure not a part of federal law.

[subego]

Is the problem with my Norway question that it's not insulting enough?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Also, this got passed.
Washington voters choose gun control; huge majority in Seattle area - Strange Bedfellows — Politics News

Glad to see it pass with a big majority.

Can't say I feel bad about stringent BG checks, I've always thought they were a necessity, and closing the gun show loophole isn't a bad thing. This isn't "gun control", it's an establishment of parity in regulations. In fact, I'd say that gun shop owners are probably rather pleased with the outcome.

[ghporter]

The thing is, the "gun show loophole" was never a "thing." It was a theoretical issue with almost all of its backing from people who had no idea what goes on at a gun show. Licensed dealers will have to use their NICS accounts to perform the background checks, which essentially becomes a tax on law abiding citizens who just want to make a legal lawful transaction, while it does nothing to the bad guys who do their transactions in an empty parking lot in the middle of the night. It is those people who we need to control, not the guys who never broke the law in their lives.

[subego]

Norway.

[Waragainstsleep]

I hear a lot of people talking about bad guys and how regulations won't curb their supply but no comment on why that is. Where are the bad guys getting their guns from if not from corrupt gun dealers at gun shows or from responsible private citizens?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Norway.

How does legalising prostitution and drugs halve the homicide rate?

[subego]

The same way it did when prohibition ended.

Gangs shoot each other because there's money on the line. There's money on the line because of prohibition. End the prohibition, there's no money. No money, no reason to shoot someone.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I hear a lot of people talking about bad guys and how regulations won't curb their supply but no comment on why that is. Where are the bad guys getting their guns from if not from corrupt gun dealers at gun shows or from responsible private citizens?

Large quantities are moved by "straw buyers". This is someone associated with the gang, but has a clean record.

Another vector is theft. For a burglar, netting a gun is a very good day.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I hear a lot of people talking about bad guys and how regulations won't curb their supply but no comment on why that is. Where are the bad guys getting their guns from if not from corrupt gun dealers at gun shows or from responsible private citizens?

Hello? Is this mic on? Seriously? I have explained it, I've explained it 4 times in this thread alone. It's easy to buy a gun on the "black market", in fact, it's easier (and faster) than buying one legally. Why? Because there's no shortage of guns available illegally (millions and millions and millions of them). Bad people don't use the legal channels to buy their weapons, only law-abiding people do. Soooo, when you restrict and overregulate legal gun sales you're only affecting lawful people, because the crooks are already armed and have unlimited access to more.

[Waragainstsleep]

Saying there is a black market is not an explanation. They have to get from manufacturers to the black market in the first place.

Subego has pointed out that theft during burglary is one mechanism, one which was included in all my previous assumptions. Forcing people to take better care of their guns or take their responsibilities more seriously might reduce the number of thefts from homes.

Seems like punishing these straw buyers is something that could work if there was regulations making guns traceable back to where they were first sold and to whom.

I still think it would make sense to keep ballistics results on record for every gun sold, and where possible those already sold.

A gun you buy is used in a crime (unless you resold it legally) you get a fine or a jail term. Something like that. Not a restriction, not infringing anyones rights.

[subego]

A lot of Norwegian guns get smuggled over the Pole into Alaska.

[ghporter]

Guns are stollen all the time. They are usually reported as stollen too. But once out of the public, stollen guns wind up going from hand to hand (usually for a profit) to be used in more criminal activities. So the vector from manufacturer to criminal is typically: manufacturer > distributor > retailer > law abiding purchaser > thief > other criminal. Far more guns wind up in criminal hands through theft than most people ever consider because of all the static and noise about "gun show loopholes" and other stuff.

Yes, there are numerous situations where "straw purchases" occur, but those are almost always organized activities; if you pay attention to the news, you probably know about "Operation Fast and Furious"... It's almost a part of the definition of "straw purchase" that it is part of an organized effort to provide weapons to someone who is not legally allowed to purchase them themselves. This is far riskier than theft, by the way.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

The point is that the firearms black market in this country is saturated. Even if there isn't another gun stolen or illegally imported (over 8 million guns are illegally imported into the USA every year), the availability would still be very high. How saturated? I can buy a new Glock G21 (not a great handgun, but widely available) for about $550 from a local shop, but on the sly, without questions or BG check, they're going for ~$400. If I'm a crook, or someone who just doesn't want the hassle of stricter regulations, where am I going to shop? The war on drugs failed, and so did the war on illicit firearms, because when you choke the legal point of access you only force more sales underground, which will only make the racketeers even more wealthy, and put even more untraceable guns on the streets.

[Waragainstsleep]

I acknowledge that the black market is enormous. Its why I don't advocate any immediate restrictions on ownership. I have to conclude then that regulations that attempt to choke the transition from legal to illegal are the best idea going forwards.

So what objections then to having legal firearms 'ballistically fingerprinted' before sale?

[BadKosh]

Ask Eric Holder about the guns he gave away in Mexico


"So what objections then to having legal firearms 'ballistically fingerprinted' before sale?"
Many do already. My XD45 had a bullet that had been fired from that gun to give, if needed to 'the authorities'.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Ask Eric Holder about the guns he gave away in Mexico

I don't know a lot about this but isn't it rather too isolated an incident to be held responsible for a significant portion of your black market gun trade?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

"So what objections then to having legal firearms 'ballistically fingerprinted' before sale?"
Many do already. My XD45 had a bullet that had been fired from that gun to give, if needed to 'the authorities'.

Well this sounds promising. But you'd have to hand that bullet over voluntarily if the authorities asked for it?
What if the ballistic signature for each gun was recorded before sale in a database, and the registrant attached when it was sold? Would that bring objections?
The idea being that if you don't file the relevant paperwork when selling a gun, you can be caught and fined/prosecuted if it is used in a crime later. Likewise if you don't report it stolen via appropriate paperwork within a reasonable time limit of being taken.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

The federal gov't doesn't have the power to enact a gun registry, and letting anti-gun nuts (and criminals) know who owns what is a very bad idea.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The federal gov't doesn't have the power to enact a gun registry

Where there is a will there is a way. If there is a will of course.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

letting anti-gun nuts (and criminals) know who owns what is a very bad idea.

Why? In case they go shoot them? I suppose it would be more dangerous for come to learn what people don't have. It shouldn't be searchable by person, only with a bullet to compare to the DB.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Where there is a will there is a way. If there is a will of course.

Yep, good luck with that amendment (the USSC has already said that's what it would require when they knocked down state registry attempts), I'm sure that 3/4ths of US states are chomping at the bit for that.

Why? In case they go shoot them?

Rabid anti-gun idiots then harass lawful gun owners, and of course, there would be focused attempts to rob those people.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Yep, good luck with that amendment (the USSC has already said that's what it would require when they knocked down state registry attempts), I'm sure that 3/4ths of US states are chomping at the bit for that.

If you cast your mind back, I stated that this is the sort of thing that I believe Americans should want. They don't of course and even if they were open to it as the reasonable compromise it sounds like there would still be the massive obstacle of the gun/NRA lobby buying votes on the issue long after the public were ok with it.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Rabid anti-gun idiots then harass lawful gun owners, and of course, there would be focused attempts to rob those people.

Somehow I suspect the latter is a more legitimate worry than the former, though aren't the presence of guns supposed to be a deterrent to intruders?
Anyway does the public/criminals use the national fingerprint DB for nefarious purposes? Doesn't seem like it would be impossible to secure it to a sufficient standard. That being one where it solved more crimes than it facilitated and ultimately went on to save lives.

Question: You know that trick on TV shows where they get the clever bad guy to drink water and then use the cup/bottle for prints or DNA? Do the police ever catch people by digging slugs out from targets at gun ranges and finding ballistics matches?
I guess you'd have to be pretty dumb to take a murder weapon to a gun range though.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you cast your mind back, I stated that this is the sort of thing that I believe Americans should want. They don't of course and even if they were open to it as the reasonable compromise it sounds like there would still be the massive obstacle of the gun/NRA lobby buying votes on the issue long after the public were ok with it.

I can't fathom why they would, as it would only cause more gov't intrusion than we already have.

Somehow I suspect the latter is a more legitimate worry than the former, though aren't the presence of guns supposed to be a deterrent to intruders?
Anyway does the public/criminals use the national fingerprint DB for nefarious purposes? Doesn't seem like it would be impossible to secure it to a sufficient standard. That being one where it solved more crimes than it facilitated and ultimately went on to save lives.

No, the knowledge that someone owns guns should not be a deterrent for intruders, what a weird thing. I can only imagine you think most people around here put up signs on their property warning, "Trespassers will be shot!". Sounds like you're watching too much TV, again. We don't have a national fingerprint DB for everyone, only people who have been arrested, and then usually only for felons. Besides, just because a person has fingerprints doesn't mean they have certain valuables someone would want to steal. A FoIA request can usually get a person's hands on most records, but barring that, officials have known to be bribed for public records, because they often get leaked.

Question: You know that trick on TV shows where they get the clever bad guy to drink water and then use the cup/bottle for prints or DNA? Do the police ever catch people by digging slugs out from targets at gun ranges and finding ballistics matches?
I guess you'd have to be pretty dumb to take a murder weapon to a gun range though.

Ballistics aren't that much of an identifier with modern guns, unless there's an defect in the rifling, which is rare. The only thing they can really tell in most cases is what the manufacturer and model was, since they'll all follow the same specification.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I can't fathom why they would, as it would only cause more gov't intrusion than we already have.

This is cited so often for so many things, but it isn't really a reason not to do something. Some things should be regulated, some things shouldn't, some things it doesn't really matter. If you're into to small government then use this for things that shouldn't and things that don't matter. Not things that might save lots of lives.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No, the knowledge that someone owns guns should not be a deterrent for intruders, what a weird thing. I can only imagine you think most people around here put up signs on their property warning, "Trespassers will be shot!". Sounds like you're watching too much TV, again.

Actually this is an argument I've heard not his forum more than once. "If a burglar thinks they might get shot when they break into a house, its a deterrent therefore guns are good." Does this hinge on the uncertainty? Or you disagree with it?
If this DB were to be created, then don't forget it should be accompanied by harsher penalties for stealing guns as well as failing to secure them adequately. Perhaps its more likely the thieves would target houses without guns so they could just steal the TV and jewellery instead. If the DB is built so you can't search it without submitting a ballistic report, it would be tough to abuse in this fashion and even if you used it to get a name for a gun owner or even just the transaction and gun vendor, perhaps the addresses would be kept separately. Any thief would have to lookup at least two or three systems to get what they need. Thieves are lazy, its why they're thieves.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

We don't have a national fingerprint DB for everyone, only people who have been arrested, and then usually only for felons. Besides, just because a person has fingerprints doesn't mean they have certain valuables someone would want to steal. A FoIA request can usually get a person's hands on most records, but barring that, officials have known to be bribed for public records, because they often get leaked.

Felons and prints taken from crime scenes or evidence of course. It seemed like the closest analogue to the proposed ballistic DB.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Ballistics aren't that much of an identifier with modern guns, unless there's an defect in the rifling, which is rare. The only thing they can really tell in most cases is what the manufacturer and model was, since they'll all follow the same specification.

Well that would put a downer on the whole idea. Perhaps the makers could do something on purpose to distinguish each one?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is cited so often for so many things, but it isn't really a reason not to do something.

Of course it is, because the gov't isn't always in the hands of trustworthy people (hah) that you like. You have to take into consideration what's going to happen when the political pendulum swings the other way... much like how Obama has completely screwed the pooch for all of us by by starting the most dangerous precedence this country has ever known.

Actually this is an argument I've heard not his forum more than once. "If a burglar thinks they might get shot when they break into a house, its a deterrent therefore guns are good." Does this hinge on the uncertainty? Or you disagree with it?
If this DB were to be created, then don't forget it should be accompanied by harsher penalties for stealing guns as well as failing to secure them adequately. Perhaps its more likely the thieves would target houses without guns so they could just steal the TV and jewellery instead. If the DB is built so you can't search it without submitting a ballistic report, it would be tough to abuse in this fashion and even if you used it to get a name for a gun owner or even just the transaction and gun vendor, perhaps the addresses would be kept separately. Any thief would have to lookup at least two or three systems to get what they need. Thieves are lazy, its why they're thieves.

No, because there's always going to be a load of people who will risk being shot for financial gain, they're too stupid to realize that they could be killed. You never announce that you store guns, to some it's like saying you're stockpiling gold.

Felons and prints taken from crime scenes or evidence of course. It seemed like the closest analogue to the proposed ballistic DB.

I national gun registry tells the gov't (and pretty much anyone else) that you're armed and what you have, which counters part of the reason why you have them to begin with, defense against a rogue state. So, with that you're open to greater gov't and criminal intrusion. Whereas, all fingerprints tell anyone is that you have fingers.

Well that would put a downer on the whole idea. Perhaps the makers could do something on purpose to distinguish each one?

Perhaps with the ammo, some types are already tracked, but I can't see how they'd do that with the gun itself.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No, because there's always going to be a load of people who will risk being shot for financial gain, they're too stupid to realize that they could be killed. You never announce that you store guns, to some it's like saying you're stockpiling gold.

This is interesting to hear. I can assure you that I have definitely heard others say the opposite.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I national gun registry tells the gov't (and pretty much anyone else) that you're armed and what you have, which counters part of the reason why you have them to begin with, defense against a rogue state. So, with that you're open to greater gov't and criminal intrusion. Whereas, all fingerprints tell anyone is that you have fingers.

I'm saying the system should be built so that you can't look up what guns a person has, only which person bought that particular gun and only by giving it a matching profile, not a serial number. Tempting and useful as it would be to law enforcement or government to allow full DB access and search ability, the way I describe combined with being very selective about who is authorised to run the searches should be sufficient to allay fears of most abuse. Of course if you are of the opinion that the CIA or FBI or NSA will just search the crap out of it anyway then there is no point in any of these measures and the whole thing is indeed a dead end.

Of course you could always let another country build/run it for you.

[The Final Dakar]

Crime rate down, respect for guns up: Trend lines pass each other contradictorily.

I don't think it's contradictory. If there are less crimes but still the same amount of guns, then they will seem safer either by correlation or innocuousness.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Still waiting for people to bag on Norway...

$15-20 for a beer is STUPID.

How's that?

[Laminar]

Well, I killed this thread. How about I try and bring it back?

Given that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and it is our duty to uphold the constitution, what is necessary in terms of manpower, firepower, and organization in order to have a militia capable of securing a free state, especially against a tyrannical federal government?

[BadKosh]

Wouldn't it depend on just how loyal the fed's were? If maybe 40% sided with the American citizens instead of a corrupt Fedgov, could the fedGov prevail? I think it would also depend on how it all started. If it started in a single state, would it spread or would a large mass of folks showed up from out of state to help stop the FedGov. I hope, if something like this happened, that it would be a large mass of folks showing up to demand the removal of a political type. Like surrounding the White House with 1-2 million folks with firearms etc. Not trying to defeat a large number of Navy Seals or somesuch. This is good question.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Wouldn't it depend on just how loyal the fed's were? If maybe 40% sided with the American citizens instead of a corrupt Fedgov, could the fedGov prevail?

What's a fed? A politician? A soldier?

Like surrounding the White House with 1-2 million folks with firearms etc. Not trying to defeat a large number of Navy Seals or somesuch. This is good question.

The first time somebody whispers this idea aloud, it's picked up by the nearest cell phone, Kinect, or smart TV and in 5 minutes the organizers either have an unfortunate drone-related house explosion, or they're locked up in Guantanamo indefinitely for plotting terrorist activities.

For all of the electronic interconnectedness we have, none of it can be used to plot against the government, as they have ears in all of it - Tor, cell phone hardware and backdoors, dummy cell phone towers, routers, satellite phones, etc. How do you organize against that kind of power?

[BadKosh]

That power can be interrupted with EMF. Devices can be made easily. diversions can be made too, to keep them off balance. Surprise helps too.

Having seen how 3 inches of snow can cause massive traffic problems in DC, it might not be too difficult.

[Laminar]

I mean...maybe if the world worked like Ocean's 11.

So my question stands: Manpower, firepower?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Well, I killed this thread. How about I try and bring it back?

Given that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and it is our duty to uphold the constitution, what is necessary in terms of manpower, firepower, and organization in order to have a militia capable of securing a free state, especially against a tyrannical federal government?

Work's already done for you, contact these guys. Home - Wisconsin State Militia I'm sure they can answer that for you. Likely all they need are more volunteers.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So my question stands: Manpower, firepower?

Wouldn't it depend on the objective? Removing a politican or overthrowing, or seriously impeding? Its like backgammon, with every move its a balance between offense and defense.

[The Final Dakar]

George Zimmerman Arrested For Aggravated Assault With Weapon - NBC News

George Zimmerman was arrested late Friday for aggravated assault and domestic violence with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his girlfriend, Florida police and his lawyer said.

The Zim is always a hit with the ladies. Or always hitting the ladies. One of the two.