There are car accidents every day that kill people, maybe we should ban cars.
There are people dying of obesity, maybe we should ban forks.
People miss spell words every day, maybe we should ban pencils.
The problem is not the guns.
In which of these straw men is the tool in question designed to end a person's life?
Or, if you prefer, we could regulate guns like cars. Mandatory licencing, regular testings, enforced safety standards, and not letting dangerous people have them!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Already have those regulations, maybe the states need to enforce what already is on the books instead of bashing law abiding gun owners, asking for more laws they wont enforce.
Bought a new hunting rifle a couple weeks ago and had to fill out almost the same amount of paper work as buying a house. Not to mention the back ground check and mandatory wait to get the rifle. I have no problem with any of it, just saying there are laws in place.
Also, of the roughly 32,000 annual gun deaths in the US, about 2/3 are suicides. Presumably few to none of these would be prevented by gun regulations.
Actually, assuming the gun regulations reduce the rate of gun ownership, a lot of them probably would. Suicide is an impulse decision (something like 90% of suicide survivors never repeat the attempt). And like all impulse decisions, things that make it really easy - like just pulling a trigger - make it more common, whereas if you have to work at it, you're more likely to have second thoughts. Hell, I don't have data on this, but I'd bet a study will find that the guns used in suicides are disproportionately those kept immediately at hand and not stored in locked safes.
I agree with what you're saying here, I don't believe any point is not valid, but what I'm wondering is exactly what constitutes "a lot."
Now, it is true that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides. But, if you look at page 33 of this, out of 39,518 suicides there were 19,990 committed by guns and 19,528 committed by "other and unspecified means and their sequelae." So apparently, there were almost as many non-gun related, or at least potentially non-gun related, suicides as there were gun-related suicides.
Once again, I don't deny that if those people seeking to commit suicide didn't have access to a gun, that many of those lives would have been spared. The thing is, after seeing that chart, I must ask the (very depressing) question of how many, because almost as many people committed suicide without or not necessarily with a firearm as those who committed suicide with a firearm.
Also, of the roughly 32,000 annual gun deaths in the US, about 2/3 are suicides. Presumably few to none of these would be prevented by gun regulations. I don't deny that if those people seeking to commit suicide didn't have access to a gun, that many of those lives would have been spared. The thing is, after seeing that chart, I must ask the (very depressing) question of how many, because almost as many people committed suicide without or not necessarily with a firearm as those who committed suicide with a firearm.
If someone really wants to end it all, it's hard to stop them. I would suggest that the "gun" part of the argument here is largely irrelevant.
If you're intent on doing it, sadly, anything will do.
Thankfully, many suicide attempts could be called a "cry for help", so the methods chosen are less final.
...sometimes civilization just breaks down. The Ferguson debacle is one instance. The LA riots were another. When the police will not or cannot protect the populace, and when law and order dissolves into chaos, why should people not be allowed the means of defending themselves?
There is very simply no reason why a sane, responsible person should not be allowed to own a gun.
Sure there is.
There are people who would look at your above comment (like me) and simply say that if the rioter's didn't have guns, that the police could act the way we would expect them to.
Guns everywhere makes the job of a policeman much more dangerous > You can't expect police to control a riot where the rioters have guns.
That's just unreasonable.
You guys have a massacre like Sandy Hook, and there's no need for change?!??!
As Blinking Spirit pointed out, mass shootings occur less often than lightning strikes.
Except we can't control lightning strikes.
We can control the laws that relate to gun ownership and gun use.
For anyone to suggest it's simply too hard to stop rampages or gun deaths in the large part is simply a cop-out.
American's suffer mass-shootings pretty much every year, and gun violence in general is so commonplace that you don't even report much of it.
I find it disappointing that so many Americans simply accept gun violence as part of life, the fact it no longer shakes you guys into wanting change is something I find quite odd.
(with gun rampage in mind) Nor do I understand why the actions of a mentally-ill individual justify the removal of freedoms for 313.9 million people.
By that rationale, should the general population be allowed to own Plutonium? A Nuke? Landmines? Anthrax?
Or course this is unreasonable thinking, yet it's at the heart of the gun control mindset.
There are certain things the general population should not have, and I don't think people owning an assault weapon is either any more realistic or necessary than any of the things I've named above.
You guys have a massacre like Sandy Hook, and there's no need for change?!??!
There is certainly a gun violence problem in America. But rampage shootings aren't it.
......
Please, dude. I get that you're horrified by gun violence. Who wouldn't be? But everything you've said here tells us you don't understand even the basics of the gun situation in America.
Patronising me aside;
Australia tightened the laws not just because of a single rampage shooting at Port Arthur (35 dead, 23 others injured), but also because it was the "last straw" after other gun violence incidents. Bear in mind, this massacre was a 'world record' at the time, so it begged for some sort of political reaction.
The words used at the time were "enough is enough", "this has to stop" etc.
Most people agreed that gun violence escalating (or even continuing) was unacceptable.
There are millions, and millions of law abiding gun owners in America. The shootings we hear of on the news are not of law abiding gun owners but people who have got the guns through illegal means. The American government is smart enough to know they can not punish millions of law abiding gun owners over the actions of a few illegal users.
There are laws to owning guns in America and the vast majority follow those laws. What you are seeing is a fraction of a single percent be bad.
Hunting is a way of life in America. Take away those rifles and guns, there would be an up rising the world has never seen before. There is no way the American government could get everyone to give their guns up. Making a country full of law abiding gun owners outlaws doesnt seem like the right way to go about it.
If we could prevent most lighting strikes, but doing so would require a costly, expansive regulatory bureaucracy that requires people to surrender some of their liberty and privacy, would it be worth it? I think the answer is no. Lighting strikes are so rare that it's not worth imposing those kinds of burdens on society.
There may be other good reasons to impose reasonable regulations on gun ownership, but mass shootings are not a valid justification. They're an emotional appeal and nothing more.
There [were] millions, and millions of law abiding gun owners in Australia. The shootings we hear of on the news are not of law abiding gun owners but people who have got the guns through illegal means. The Australian government is smart enough to know they can not punish millions of law abiding gun owners over the actions of a few illegal users.
There are laws to owning guns in Australia and the vast majority follow those laws. What you are seeing is a fraction of a single percent be bad.
Hunting is a way of life in Australia. Take away those rifles and guns, there would be an up rising the world has never seen before. There is no way the Australian government could get everyone to give their guns up. Making a country full of law abiding gun owners outlaws doesnt seem like the right way to go about it.
First, all of that applies to 1995 Australia, except the last line. The last line is just you missframing the argument: Guns won't be banned overnight, they'd be confiscated and you'd only make these people outlaws when they didn't comply. (Ex post facto laws and all that)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Sure there is.
There are people who would look at your above comment (like me) and simply say that if the rioter's didn't have guns, that the police could act the way we would expect them to.
Guns everywhere makes the job of a policeman much more dangerous > You can't expect police to control a riot where the rioters have guns.
That's just unreasonable.
There have been no confirmed reports of guns in the Ferguson riots. Other than in the hands of the police, of course. They didn't react the way they did because they were afraid of guns. They reacted the way they did because they were untrained and completely tone-deaf to the needs of the community. It is completely unjustified and ad hoc of you to assume that if this one particular variable you're interested in were changed, everything in Ferguson would be peaceful. Someone on the other side could, with equal justification (i.e., none), claim that if there were more guns in Ferguson, the police would be on their best behavior because they'd be afraid of an armed rebellion.
And I know you don't actually believe the authorities are always saints. I get enough results when I google "police brutality Australia".
Except we can't control lightning strikes.
We can control the laws that relate to gun ownership and gun use.
For anyone to suggest it's simply too hard to stop rampages or gun deaths in the large part is simply a cop-out.
American's suffer mass-shootings pretty much every year, and gun violence in general is so commonplace that you don't even report much of it.
I find it disappointing that so many Americans simply accept gun violence as part of life, the fact it no longer shakes you guys into wanting change is something I find quite odd.
We could control lightning strikes by banning all buildings taller than two stories. That would significantly reduce the damage they do. But it would also be a massive burden to impose on the American people, completely disproportionate to the magnitude of the threat. And that's what an Australian-style comprehensive gun ban would be.
But it is disingenuous of you to claim that because we don't want to do that, we don't want to do anything. There are in fact a host of more measured approaches to the gun violence problem: We need to close loopholes in and beef up enforcement of existing laws that prevent felons, the mentally ill, and other dangerous people from buying guns and ammo. We need to improve gun education, with testing and licensing to ensure that everybody who owns a gun can operate it safely just like we do with cars. And we can do some cool stuff, too, like encouraging the production and sale of guns with biometric locks so that only the owner can fire them.
We don't want to chop off all buildings at two stories, but that doesn't mean we aren't interested in lightning rods.
By that rationale, should the general population be allowed to own Plutonium? A Nuke? Landmines? Anthrax?
Scientists in laboratories, following proper safety procedures, can perform experiments with plutonium. Ditto doctors with anthrax. And private companies can operate nuclear reactors (it's just ridiculously expensive) and work with explosives. The government has a legitimate interest in regulating and overseeing the use of these dangerous materials to ensure public safety, but they can and are used for peaceful and productive purposes and so the government does not ban them. It is by exactly this same principle that the government allows people to drive cars, but conducts driving tests and issues driver's licenses.
Maybe. Who can say what the sentiments of the coming generations will be? A hundred years ago, Americans would have been utterly horrified at the prospect of a government agency reading all our mail and monitoring our electronic communications in the name of preventing another lightning strike like 9/11. But today we're just sort of resigned to it.
In the next three to five decades? No.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There is no way the government could confiscate all the guns in America. They could go door to door and they would not get all the guns. The number of people who would balk at the suggestion of confiscation of guns would be in the millions. I would say conflict between the government and those holding the firearms would be the next step.
Again, this is about a few people doing wrong with guns. There are millions of law abiding gun owners that would be effected because of the actions of these few. I dont see it happening in my lifetime, probably not till America crumbles.
There is very simply no reason why a sane, responsible person should not be allowed to own a gun.
Sure there is.
There are people who would look at your above comment (like me) and simply say that if the rioter's didn't have guns, that the police could act the way we would expect them to.
Guns everywhere makes the job of a policeman much more dangerous > You can't expect police to control a riot where the rioters have guns.
That's just unreasonable.
Except:
1. I've found nothing confirming that the rioters have guns.
2. The police have military-grade weaponry.
3. The problem is not that the police are having a problem maintaining law and order due to the active hostile threat from a group of well-armed criminals.
No the problem is that they are behaving extremely irresponsibly and have allowed a situation to escalate beyond their ability to manage and control due to their reactions to outrage from a situation that may, indeed, have been caused by an instance of illegal police brutality. Notice how I've said there's no reason a sane, responsible citizen should not have a gun. Ferguson demonstrates that the police and military are not always sane or responsible, so your blind trust in policemen is astoundingly myopic in the face of this.
Moreover, there has been an upsurge in sales of guns in Ferguson, not because people are looking to shoot cops, but because the police have demonstratively proven themselves inept and incapable of maintaining law and order, and people wish to protect their lives and property from the state of lawlessness they have found themselves in. I fail to see any rational argument that says they should be prevented from doing so. That goes all the way back to John Locke. The state is meant to protect the people from anarchy. If the police are proven incapable of doing so, or end up causing widespread chaos through their ineptitude, then what possible argument can there be against the citizens having arms and being allowed to protect themselves?
Except we can't control lightning strikes.
We can control the laws that relate to gun ownership and gun use.
For anyone to suggest it's simply too hard to stop rampages or gun deaths in the large part is simply a cop-out.
No, the answer is we cannot stop rampages or gun deaths. It's not a cop-out, it's a basic fact. There is no easy solution to this problem.
And yes, we can control gun laws, we've already demonstrated that there's no correlation between passing laws making it harder to obtain guns and less gun violence.
In fact, while Ferguson is not a situation in which law enforcement cannot enforce the laws because they are facing significant opposition by well-armed criminals, Mexico is certainly an example of this. And, as I've said before, Mexico has far more stringent gun laws than the US does, including having only one store in the entire country in which one can legally buy firearms. There is no correlation between the stringency of Mexico's gun laws and the gun violence that has plagued the country.
American's suffer mass-shootings pretty much every year, and gun violence in general is so commonplace that you don't even report much of it.
Which is not correlated to the supply of guns in this country. As I've said, gun violence has gone down, despite the number of guns having gone up. The problem is not ownership of guns.
I find it disappointing that so many Americans simply accept gun violence as part of life, the fact it no longer shakes you guys into wanting change is something I find quite odd.
That's completely incorrect. Certainly Americans are horrified by gun violence, and there are indeed many people who petition stronger gun laws, if not outright banning of guns.
The problem is that this is not a sensible, effective solution to the problem, anymore than banning cars to stop car crashes would be.
Moreover, you still conveniently ignore a major issue with your argument: The vast majority of gun violence is inflicted against oneself. The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides. Indeed, suicides greatly outnumber gun homicides, and gun-related suicides only constitute a slight majority in terms of overall suicides.
The issue is not guns. The issue is people willingly committing fatal actions against themselves and against others.
By that rationale, should the general population be allowed to own Plutonium? A Nuke? Landmines? Anthrax?
Blinking Spirit has outlined several situations in which rational, responsible people are indeed allowed to own such things.
Or course this is unreasonable thinking
Why? Why would a rational, sane person who has demonstrated the capacity to use such a thing safely be denied to own any of those?
There are certain things the general population should not have, and I don't think people owning an assault weapon is either any more realistic or necessary than any of the things I've named above.
All of those are realistic scenarios. Try again.
By the way, you can own a tank as well.
Patronising me aside;
Australia tightened the laws not just because of a single rampage shooting at Port Arthur (35 dead, 23 others injured), but also because it was the "last straw" after other gun violence incidents. Bear in mind, this massacre was a 'world record' at the time, so it begged for some sort of political reaction.
The words used at the time were "enough is enough", "this has to stop" etc.
Most people agreed that gun violence escalating (or even continuing) was unacceptable.
Gun violence is not escalating in our country. It is decreasing. Despite guns increasing.
Therefore, the claim that there is a positive correlation between numbers of guns and gun violence is incorrect.
Intent. If I use a car correctly I have moved from point A to point B. If I use an M16 correctly, you're dead.
Again, why is that a relevant detail?
You could also say that a car moves people from point A to point B while a can opener opens cans. But that's a detail that has no relevance to this discussion. What is the point you're making, and why is that detail relevant?
Already have those regulations, maybe the states need to enforce what already is on the books instead of bashing law abiding gun owners, asking for more laws they wont enforce.
Can you be more specific about which laws you feel they should enforce better?
First, all of that applies to 1995 Australia, except the last line. The last line is just you missframing the argument: Guns won't be banned overnight, they'd be confiscated and you'd only make these people outlaws when they didn't comply. (Ex post facto laws and all that)
Confiscating guns in the U.S. is not a realistic option (both practically and politically).
Already have those regulations, maybe the states need to enforce what already is on the books instead of bashing law abiding gun owners, asking for more laws they wont enforce.
Can you be more specific about which laws you feel they should enforce better?
Having to register your gun is a big one. Stricter background checks. Better mental health checks. All cost money and time and cut into profits.
More or less you go buy a new gun, fill out a stack of papers, if nothing flags from your name the gun is yours.
Go to a gun show, there is less paper work and no checks. Just enough to cover the guy selling the gun.
We wont even talk about the backroom gun shops where there are no serial numbers or paper work other then the color of paper money.
But guns, ammo and hunting in general is a multi-billion dollar business in America. The rich politicians dont want to rock the boat of their rich counter parts.
Lets talk about Sandy Hook for a second, A mentally disturbed person, steals some guns from their parent, kills their parent, then goes to the school that parent worked and shot it up. I dont understand what gun laws that can be on the books can stop this.
Lets look at Columbine, a group of mentally distressed teenagers who have been bullied steal some guns and build some propane bombs (which they learned how to do off the internet) and attack their school, shooting up the place. Should we ban the internet? Thats where they got the bomb plans. They stole the guns and were mentally unstable.
There seems to be a trend, dont let mentally disturbed people play with guns.
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the amount of paperwork you fill out at a gun show is less than is required by law, and that no one bothers enforcing that?
Isn't there also a general tendency of already dangerous situations escalating because one or more presumably sane people were armed and so what could have been an argument or arrest ended with someone dead?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the amount of paperwork you fill out at a gun show is less than is required by law, and that no one bothers enforcing that?
What is there to be confused about?
How many people pay taxes on monies made through garage sales? I can go to a garage sale and buy guns and fill out zero paper work and have a gun essentially with no registration connecting it to me. At least at a gun show there is a trail of sorts and some paper work is filled out. No back ground checks though.
Walk into a gun show with cash, and you probably wont have to fill out much paper work. The more paper work, the more the gun seller has to claim to the government. Hence paying taxes on sales from a glorified garage sale.
If someone wants a gun, they should all have to go through the same steps no matter. I am all for states enforcing the laws on the books, but lets enforce the laws on the books before we start making up new ones.
Quote from Hackworth »
Isn't there also a general tendency of already dangerous situations escalating because one or more presumably sane people were armed and so what could have been an argument or arrest ended with someone dead?
I would argue the sane part of that statement. How often have we ever heard, 'the shooter was of sound mind while blowing holes in the person'?
9 times out of 10, a sane, educated gun owner is not going to shoot unless its the last resort.
Without looking, I am willing to think the number of gun owners in America dwarfs the number is Australia when they were confiscated. The logistics in confiscating guns in America is a nightmare. There is no way the government could get them all. But punish the innocent, its the wave of the future.
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the amount of paperwork you fill out at a gun show is less than is required by law, and that no one bothers enforcing that?
What is there to be confused about?
How many people pay taxes on monies made through garage sales? I can go to a garage sale and buy guns and fill out zero paper work and have a gun essentially with no registration connecting it to me. At least at a gun show there is a trail of sorts and some paper work is filled out. No back ground checks though.
Walk into a gun show with cash, and you probably wont have to fill out much paper work. The more paper work, the more the gun seller has to claim to the government. Hence paying taxes on sales from a glorified garage sale.
If someone wants a gun, they should all have to go through the same steps no matter. I am all for states enforcing the laws on the books, but lets enforce the laws on the books before we start making up new ones.
So, most states don't require background checks for gun shows. I don't think that's an issue about not enforcing the laws on the books. It sounds like you're advocating expanding the laws on the books.
No, there are laws on the books, just very hard to enforce and no one follows them because there is little punishment for not doing so.
I am not advocating for new laws, I am advocating finding a way to enforce the ones on the books. The problem is money. Money being made on these sales, and the money it would take to enforce the laws already there.
Still we are talking a very small percentage of gun purchases. A fraction of a percent of a percentage point.
Again, gun ownership is a right in America. Its only been recently the soapbox crowd has seen or heard of incedents that make them want to change something. 200+ years and now people want change.
As you can see, only a very small number of states require a background check at gun shows. So, when you say that everyone should have to go through the same steps, you are advocating a significant expansion in the law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are car accidents every day that kill people, maybe we should ban cars.
There are people dying of obesity, maybe we should ban forks.
People miss spell words every day, maybe we should ban pencils.
The problem is not the guns.
Positions without reasons and posts that don't actually attempt to engage the debate are Spam. Warning issued. --bLatch
In which of these straw men is the tool in question designed to end a person's life?
Or, if you prefer, we could regulate guns like cars. Mandatory licencing, regular testings, enforced safety standards, and not letting dangerous people have them!
Bought a new hunting rifle a couple weeks ago and had to fill out almost the same amount of paper work as buying a house. Not to mention the back ground check and mandatory wait to get the rifle. I have no problem with any of it, just saying there are laws in place.
I agree with what you're saying here, I don't believe any point is not valid, but what I'm wondering is exactly what constitutes "a lot."
I was looking through a chart on the CDC website regarding causes of death for the US in 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
Now, it is true that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides. But, if you look at page 33 of this, out of 39,518 suicides there were 19,990 committed by guns and 19,528 committed by "other and unspecified means and their sequelae." So apparently, there were almost as many non-gun related, or at least potentially non-gun related, suicides as there were gun-related suicides.
Once again, I don't deny that if those people seeking to commit suicide didn't have access to a gun, that many of those lives would have been spared. The thing is, after seeing that chart, I must ask the (very depressing) question of how many, because almost as many people committed suicide without or not necessarily with a firearm as those who committed suicide with a firearm.
If someone really wants to end it all, it's hard to stop them. I would suggest that the "gun" part of the argument here is largely irrelevant.
If you're intent on doing it, sadly, anything will do.
Thankfully, many suicide attempts could be called a "cry for help", so the methods chosen are less final.
Sure there is.
There are people who would look at your above comment (like me) and simply say that if the rioter's didn't have guns, that the police could act the way we would expect them to.
Guns everywhere makes the job of a policeman much more dangerous > You can't expect police to control a riot where the rioters have guns.
That's just unreasonable.
Except we can't control lightning strikes.
We can control the laws that relate to gun ownership and gun use.
For anyone to suggest it's simply too hard to stop rampages or gun deaths in the large part is simply a cop-out.
American's suffer mass-shootings pretty much every year, and gun violence in general is so commonplace that you don't even report much of it.
I find it disappointing that so many Americans simply accept gun violence as part of life, the fact it no longer shakes you guys into wanting change is something I find quite odd.
By that rationale, should the general population be allowed to own Plutonium? A Nuke? Landmines? Anthrax?
Or course this is unreasonable thinking, yet it's at the heart of the gun control mindset.
There are certain things the general population should not have, and I don't think people owning an assault weapon is either any more realistic or necessary than any of the things I've named above.
Patronising me aside;
Australia tightened the laws not just because of a single rampage shooting at Port Arthur (35 dead, 23 others injured), but also because it was the "last straw" after other gun violence incidents. Bear in mind, this massacre was a 'world record' at the time, so it begged for some sort of political reaction.
The words used at the time were "enough is enough", "this has to stop" etc.
Most people agreed that gun violence escalating (or even continuing) was unacceptable.
Is the USA EVER likely to reach this point?
There are laws to owning guns in America and the vast majority follow those laws. What you are seeing is a fraction of a single percent be bad.
Hunting is a way of life in America. Take away those rifles and guns, there would be an up rising the world has never seen before. There is no way the American government could get everyone to give their guns up. Making a country full of law abiding gun owners outlaws doesnt seem like the right way to go about it.
Its not the guns anyway.
If we could prevent most lighting strikes, but doing so would require a costly, expansive regulatory bureaucracy that requires people to surrender some of their liberty and privacy, would it be worth it? I think the answer is no. Lighting strikes are so rare that it's not worth imposing those kinds of burdens on society.
There may be other good reasons to impose reasonable regulations on gun ownership, but mass shootings are not a valid justification. They're an emotional appeal and nothing more.
Intent. If I use a car correctly I have moved from point A to point B. If I use an M16 correctly, you're dead.
Nope, as Tom Tomorrow said:
Hmm...Whoopty doo I guess.
Simple facts,
Guns created America.
Guns are a right in America.
Guns are not going anywhere in America.
The government is not going to make millions of outlaws because of a few bad apples, and a few on their soapboxes.
And I know you don't actually believe the authorities are always saints. I get enough results when I google "police brutality Australia".
We could control lightning strikes by banning all buildings taller than two stories. That would significantly reduce the damage they do. But it would also be a massive burden to impose on the American people, completely disproportionate to the magnitude of the threat. And that's what an Australian-style comprehensive gun ban would be.
But it is disingenuous of you to claim that because we don't want to do that, we don't want to do anything. There are in fact a host of more measured approaches to the gun violence problem: We need to close loopholes in and beef up enforcement of existing laws that prevent felons, the mentally ill, and other dangerous people from buying guns and ammo. We need to improve gun education, with testing and licensing to ensure that everybody who owns a gun can operate it safely just like we do with cars. And we can do some cool stuff, too, like encouraging the production and sale of guns with biometric locks so that only the owner can fire them.
We don't want to chop off all buildings at two stories, but that doesn't mean we aren't interested in lightning rods.
Scientists in laboratories, following proper safety procedures, can perform experiments with plutonium. Ditto doctors with anthrax. And private companies can operate nuclear reactors (it's just ridiculously expensive) and work with explosives. The government has a legitimate interest in regulating and overseeing the use of these dangerous materials to ensure public safety, but they can and are used for peaceful and productive purposes and so the government does not ban them. It is by exactly this same principle that the government allows people to drive cars, but conducts driving tests and issues driver's licenses.
Maybe. Who can say what the sentiments of the coming generations will be? A hundred years ago, Americans would have been utterly horrified at the prospect of a government agency reading all our mail and monitoring our electronic communications in the name of preventing another lightning strike like 9/11. But today we're just sort of resigned to it.
In the next three to five decades? No.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Again, this is about a few people doing wrong with guns. There are millions of law abiding gun owners that would be effected because of the actions of these few. I dont see it happening in my lifetime, probably not till America crumbles.
1. I've found nothing confirming that the rioters have guns.
2. The police have military-grade weaponry.
3. The problem is not that the police are having a problem maintaining law and order due to the active hostile threat from a group of well-armed criminals.
No the problem is that they are behaving extremely irresponsibly and have allowed a situation to escalate beyond their ability to manage and control due to their reactions to outrage from a situation that may, indeed, have been caused by an instance of illegal police brutality. Notice how I've said there's no reason a sane, responsible citizen should not have a gun. Ferguson demonstrates that the police and military are not always sane or responsible, so your blind trust in policemen is astoundingly myopic in the face of this.
Moreover, there has been an upsurge in sales of guns in Ferguson, not because people are looking to shoot cops, but because the police have demonstratively proven themselves inept and incapable of maintaining law and order, and people wish to protect their lives and property from the state of lawlessness they have found themselves in. I fail to see any rational argument that says they should be prevented from doing so. That goes all the way back to John Locke. The state is meant to protect the people from anarchy. If the police are proven incapable of doing so, or end up causing widespread chaos through their ineptitude, then what possible argument can there be against the citizens having arms and being allowed to protect themselves?
No, the answer is we cannot stop rampages or gun deaths. It's not a cop-out, it's a basic fact. There is no easy solution to this problem.
And yes, we can control gun laws, we've already demonstrated that there's no correlation between passing laws making it harder to obtain guns and less gun violence.
In fact, while Ferguson is not a situation in which law enforcement cannot enforce the laws because they are facing significant opposition by well-armed criminals, Mexico is certainly an example of this. And, as I've said before, Mexico has far more stringent gun laws than the US does, including having only one store in the entire country in which one can legally buy firearms. There is no correlation between the stringency of Mexico's gun laws and the gun violence that has plagued the country.
Which is not correlated to the supply of guns in this country. As I've said, gun violence has gone down, despite the number of guns having gone up. The problem is not ownership of guns.
That's completely incorrect. Certainly Americans are horrified by gun violence, and there are indeed many people who petition stronger gun laws, if not outright banning of guns.
The problem is that this is not a sensible, effective solution to the problem, anymore than banning cars to stop car crashes would be.
Moreover, you still conveniently ignore a major issue with your argument: The vast majority of gun violence is inflicted against oneself. The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides. Indeed, suicides greatly outnumber gun homicides, and gun-related suicides only constitute a slight majority in terms of overall suicides.
The issue is not guns. The issue is people willingly committing fatal actions against themselves and against others.
Blinking Spirit has outlined several situations in which rational, responsible people are indeed allowed to own such things.
Why? Why would a rational, sane person who has demonstrated the capacity to use such a thing safely be denied to own any of those?
All of those are realistic scenarios. Try again.
By the way, you can own a tank as well.
Gun violence is not escalating in our country. It is decreasing. Despite guns increasing.
Therefore, the claim that there is a positive correlation between numbers of guns and gun violence is incorrect.
Again, why is that a relevant detail?
You could also say that a car moves people from point A to point B while a can opener opens cans. But that's a detail that has no relevance to this discussion. What is the point you're making, and why is that detail relevant?
Can you be more specific about which laws you feel they should enforce better?
Confiscating guns in the U.S. is not a realistic option (both practically and politically).
Having to register your gun is a big one. Stricter background checks. Better mental health checks. All cost money and time and cut into profits.
More or less you go buy a new gun, fill out a stack of papers, if nothing flags from your name the gun is yours.
Go to a gun show, there is less paper work and no checks. Just enough to cover the guy selling the gun.
We wont even talk about the backroom gun shops where there are no serial numbers or paper work other then the color of paper money.
But guns, ammo and hunting in general is a multi-billion dollar business in America. The rich politicians dont want to rock the boat of their rich counter parts.
Lets talk about Sandy Hook for a second, A mentally disturbed person, steals some guns from their parent, kills their parent, then goes to the school that parent worked and shot it up. I dont understand what gun laws that can be on the books can stop this.
Lets look at Columbine, a group of mentally distressed teenagers who have been bullied steal some guns and build some propane bombs (which they learned how to do off the internet) and attack their school, shooting up the place. Should we ban the internet? Thats where they got the bomb plans. They stole the guns and were mentally unstable.
There seems to be a trend, dont let mentally disturbed people play with guns.
Art is life itself.
What is there to be confused about?
How many people pay taxes on monies made through garage sales? I can go to a garage sale and buy guns and fill out zero paper work and have a gun essentially with no registration connecting it to me. At least at a gun show there is a trail of sorts and some paper work is filled out. No back ground checks though.
Walk into a gun show with cash, and you probably wont have to fill out much paper work. The more paper work, the more the gun seller has to claim to the government. Hence paying taxes on sales from a glorified garage sale.
If someone wants a gun, they should all have to go through the same steps no matter. I am all for states enforcing the laws on the books, but lets enforce the laws on the books before we start making up new ones.
I would argue the sane part of that statement. How often have we ever heard, 'the shooter was of sound mind while blowing holes in the person'?
9 times out of 10, a sane, educated gun owner is not going to shoot unless its the last resort.
And yet, Australia.
Without looking, I am willing to think the number of gun owners in America dwarfs the number is Australia when they were confiscated. The logistics in confiscating guns in America is a nightmare. There is no way the government could get them all. But punish the innocent, its the wave of the future.
So, most states don't require background checks for gun shows. I don't think that's an issue about not enforcing the laws on the books. It sounds like you're advocating expanding the laws on the books.
I am not advocating for new laws, I am advocating finding a way to enforce the ones on the books. The problem is money. Money being made on these sales, and the money it would take to enforce the laws already there.
Still we are talking a very small percentage of gun purchases. A fraction of a percent of a percentage point.
Again, gun ownership is a right in America. Its only been recently the soapbox crowd has seen or heard of incedents that make them want to change something. 200+ years and now people want change.
As you can see, only a very small number of states require a background check at gun shows. So, when you say that everyone should have to go through the same steps, you are advocating a significant expansion in the law.