(July 11, 2015 at 8:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I voted for reducing current restrictions

Pfft. Fucking libertarians.

I voted 4, 5, 6 ,7. I think all of those things can be achieved and would go a long way to preventing so many shootings from happening. I don't know that an outright ban would be accepted by most Americans. Living in old Blighty, I couldn't give two shits about guns being outright banned, but over there you guys get sentimental.

I asked 1,000 random people on the street in England some questions, and none of them had been killed by a gun.

I did the same thing in America, and 236 out of the 1,000 people I talked to had been killed by a gun.

(July 12, 2015 at 4:41 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: Don't watch too many movies, BG.
And also, where did you get the idea that I would pray? This seems slightly out of context. Under religious views, there is a pretty clear statement about my beliefs in God.

The part with the movies was just to give you an idea what kind of breaking in I was talking about. As for the praying part, that's the only thing you can do without any means to defend yourself. If you think armed robberies of homes is just in movies, you should come to live here. I promise you'll race back home in less than a month, after a whole camp of gypsies broke into your house, tied you, beated you, raped you and robbed everything you have. You won't be able to do anything because they're always armed with anything from shovels to actual guns. So, unless you have a gun, you're dead meat and you can only pray, whether you believe or not.

We've already given our government control and authority aplenty to make looong lists of things we can and can't do, can and can't have.  They're fucking dismal at it, and with each addition to the list the liberty our government is supposed to exist to pursue and maintain for us is diminished.  Banning guns would likely prevent a great many accidental deaths and injuries -by gun-, those same people might find another creative way to hurt themselves, of course, but it wouldn't be guns -as much-.  It's unlikely to stop people from committing violent crime and hurting each other.  So whats the score of banning guns, what do we achieve, and whats the effect?

Idiots will find it more difficult (but not impossible) to shoot themselves or their neighbors.
Criminals will find themselves in precisely the same situation they're already in - they don;t seem to be having -too- much trouble hurting people as is.
Liberty would be eroded, the power of the state increased.

I'm not sure that a small gain in #1 is worth the hit to #3, and there must certainly be another way to achieve #1 - #2 is a wash, the guns used in committing violent crimes are almost uniformly illegal -already-. If we add licensing and -enforcement- to our existing gun laws (where not already applicable) then I can;t imagine what the issue might be. The issue now, is that our existing gun laws simply aren't enforced, or aren't uniform (and how would a ban matter at all if we aren;t interested in enforcement in the first place?). We don't prosecute the man who sold the hot gun to the drug dealer, but we could, and should. We don't prosecute the man who sends a "freedom missile" (thanks Min) into his neighbors living room - even though we do prosecute the same man who puts his car in the neighbors living room. I don;t get it at all, no more than I get the ban idea. Our government and our laws don't exist to act against, and aren't capable of legislation regarding pre-crime. If something happens involving a gun, we should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, but we do actually have to wait until someone's done something wrong until we can put them under the spotlight. Banning my .22 puts me under the finger of Uncle Sam for my crimes against aluminum cans and squirrels, using the justification of what other criminals/incompetents have done in other places, to other people - with no real expectation that I would do the same. It's fucking un-american...lol.

We'll need a better reason for a ban of my personal property, imo, much better than "other bad people elsewhere did shitty things" or "we're trying to prevent crimes that have not yet happened by legislating against you, a non-criminal, today"..............don't get me wrong, it may even work, and that's probably what makes it so alluring, but that doesn't change that the notion is fundamentally an abrogation of liberty and freedom, fundamentally an inversion of the purpose of our system of law. I've said it before...we'll probably end up banning guns in the US, eventually. I just want to think that when we do, people understand what it is we've done, and how much of a disappointment both we, and our governments) would become on that count. So, we've got a problem with gun violence in the US, if the solution that both we and our government arrive upon is to add a few inches to the height of the concertina here in our Prison States, I'm not going to see that ban as any sort of victory.

(July 12, 2015 at 12:24 am)Minimalist Wrote: How'd that work out for them?

There is more than 300 of us this time.

I propose we do the following:

1) Change the wording of the second amendment to specify that the organized militia we have in mind is the national guard. Only those who are a part of the guard, the military or the police force will be allowed any opportunity to train with military grade weapons. Such weapons will remain the property of guvmint though they can be issued for keeping at home as needed.

2) Require thorough back ground checks and safety instruction for individuals to possess weapons designed for hunting or target shooting or for personal safety. Licenses should need to be renewed. For personal safety you can have one single firing pistol. You would not be allowed a weapons chest of toys for you survivalist cave.

3) Failure to keep weapons adequately locked away so that your kid winds up shooting your neighbor's kid would not only bring the reckless endangerment and manslaughter charges. In addition you would be restricted from any further involvement with firearms and pay a fine in the form all your registered firearms you'd be forced to surrender.

Bye, bye wild, wild west.

(July 12, 2015 at 10:42 am)KUSA Wrote:

(July 12, 2015 at 12:24 am)Minimalist Wrote: How'd that work out for them?

There is more than 300 of us this time.

Seems to me that most assholes with guns would shoot each other or themselves.

(July 12, 2015 at 11:36 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(July 12, 2015 at 10:42 am)KUSA Wrote: There is more than 300 of us this time.

Seems to me that most assholes with guns would shoot each other or themselves.

Well since I've read your 2a thread I've been really careful not to shoot myself while cleaning my stuff so I think I'll be ok. Once the nuts shoot each other I'll just pick their guns off the ground and add to my arsenal.

(July 12, 2015 at 8:43 am)Rhythm Wrote: We've already given our government control and authority aplenty to make looong lists of things we can and can't do, can and can't have.  They're fucking dismal at it, and with each addition to the list the liberty our government is supposed to exist to pursue and maintain for us is diminished.  Banning guns would likely prevent a great many accidental deaths and injuries -by gun-, those same people might find another creative way to hurt themselves, of course, but it wouldn't be guns -as much-.  It's unlikely to stop people from committing violent crime and hurting each other.  So whats the score of banning guns, what do we achieve, and whats the effect?

Idiots will find it more difficult (but not impossible) to shoot themselves or their neighbors.
Criminals will find themselves in precisely the same situation they're already in - they don;t seem to be having -too- much trouble hurting people as is.
Liberty would be eroded, the power of the state increased.

I'm not sure that a small gain in #1 is worth the hit to #3, and there must certainly be another way to achieve #1 - #2 is a wash, the guns used in committing violent crimes are almost uniformly illegal -already-.  If we add licensing and -enforcement- to our existing gun laws (where not already applicable) then I can;t imagine what the issue might be.  The issue now, is that our existing gun laws simply aren't enforced, or aren't uniform (and how would a ban matter at all if we aren;t interested in enforcement in the first place?).  We don't prosecute the man who sold the hot gun to the drug dealer, but we could, and should.  We don't prosecute the man who sends a "freedom missile" (thanks Min) into his neighbors living room - even though we do prosecute the same man who puts his car in the neighbors living room.   I don;t get it at all, no more than I get the ban idea.  Our government and our laws don't exist to act against, and aren't capable of legislation regarding pre-crime.  If something happens involving a gun, we should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, but we do actually have to wait until someone's done something wrong until we can put them under the spotlight.  Banning my .22 puts me under the finger of Uncle Sam for my crimes against aluminum cans and squirrels, using the justification of what other criminals/incompetents have done in other places, to other people - with no real expectation that I would do the same.  It's fucking un-american...lol.  

We'll need a better reason for a ban of my personal property, imo, much better than "other bad people elsewhere did shitty things" or "we're trying to prevent crimes that have not yet happened by legislating against you, a non-criminal, today"..............don't get me wrong, it may even work, and that's probably what makes it so alluring, but that doesn't change that the notion is fundamentally an abrogation of liberty and freedom, fundamentally an inversion of the purpose of our system of law.  I've said it before...we'll probably end up banning guns in the US, eventually.  I just want to think that when we do, people understand what it is we've done, and how much of a disappointment both we, and our governments) would become on that count.  So, we've got a problem with gun violence in the US, if the solution that both we and our government arrive upon is to add a few inches to the height of the concertina here in our Prison States, I'm not going to see that ban as any sort of victory.

Liberty, schmiberty.

Boru

Liberty? It's a right.